More On Edwards' Doubletalk On Immigration

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 05:45:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Politico:

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.
. . . "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.

Yep.

< ACLU to Monitor Thursday's Gitmo Hearing on Omar Khadr | Late Night: CMA Awards , The Eagles >

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.

More On Edwards' Doubletalk On Immigration | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Still don't have Edwards right (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Lora on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:40:21 PM EST

What is it about immigration reform that is so difficult to understand?

Edwards CLEARLY stated he wants to see immigration reform BEFORE drivers licenses. Whether you hate it or not, there is nothing confusing about his stand.

: last quotes (none / 0) (#19)
by Jgarza on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:44:41 PM EST

I agree with you on the last post, thats what edwards was saying.

"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
This doesn't say that, in fact it really doesn't make sense. It's an unfair attack on Spitzer, because it implies that he has the ability to make a path to citizenship.

You sure you are posting to the right blog? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 06:25:27 AM EST

This reads like a posting on one of those tiresome "my candidate is great, yours sucks" diaries on MyDD.

: John Edwards (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:17:52 AM EST

I don't like Edwards, I have defended him on here and still pointed out that I don't like him, so i think I'm in the clear to criticize him and state that I don't like him.
It's kind of like the speed of light, it's always a constant.

What is about immigration that causes candidates (none / 0) (#1)
by Geekesque on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:08:25 PM EST

brains to turn to mush?

Appealing to the basest natures (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:43:13 PM EST

For a while I thought Edwards was more to my liking than Obama.

But it is becoming clear to me that Edwards is willing to appeal to the baser side of populism while Obama is not.

Right now, Obama is my clear #2 in the race.

Edwards is 3rd.

Clinton 4th.


That said (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:44:44 PM EST

Obama still needs to clean up this McClurkin mess.


: A lot of his supporters, self included, agree (none / 0) (#10)
by Geekesque on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:56:38 PM EST

My guess is that he springs something--probably in terms of policy--in the next week.

Is your interest in the subject of driver's (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:17:27 PM EST

licenses for undocumented persons based on your pushing candidates to clearly state their positions on this issue?

Are you of the opinion permitting undocumented persons to apply for state drivers' licenses will be effective re safety on the road and access to insurance coverage in the event these licensees are involved in accidents?

What were Sen. Dodd's reasons for his response?

I am of the opinion (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:41:32 PM EST

you describe in the second graf. The empirical evidence proves this is undoubtedly so.


please provide a link (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:50:04 PM EST

to the empirical data you claim supports this position. in va, you don't need insurance to be granted a driver's license, only to register a motor vehicle and get tags. the insurance is on the car, not the driver. check with your insurance provider, you'll find i'm correct. it's part of property & casualty insurance.

in fact, you don't even need to provide proof of insurance, just check a box stating you have it. in the alternative, you can pay an uninsured motorist's fee, obviating the need to secure insurance on the vehicle.

with regards to passing the driver's test, pretty much any one-celled creature can do that. it clearly bears little relevance to how safe a driver one is, since most parties involved in "incidents" have a valid driver's license.

again, please direct me to the data purportedly supporting this claim.


: There is no data. (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:13:06 AM EST

There is no evidence, and it is contrary to common sense, that those that are driving on our streets everyday now w/o DL's will drive any safer after having answered 8 questions correctly out of 10 on a multiple choice test.
There is no evidence, and it is contrary to common sense, that those who now drive w/o DL's and who also choose not to buy expensive auto insurance, will suddenly choose to buy it after having received a DL.
And there is no evidence, and it is contrary to common sense, that illegal aliens with DL's - ie., identification which will quickly enable a police officer to discover their illegal immigrant status - will be any more prone to stay at the scene of an accident than illegal aliens w/o DL's.

OT but interesting. The book I'm (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:48:33 PM EST

reading, The Boys From Delores, by Patrick Symmes, 2007, states that in the early days after the Castro regime took power and while legal immigration out of Cuba was difficult but possible and the U.S. was granting visas, the U.S. was providing each immigrant $1000/year.

This would be a good time to fire Prince. (none / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:58:56 PM EST

This was beyond dumb.

He may be muddled on the DL issue (none / 0) (#8)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:38:03 PM EST

but at least he gave a barn-burner of a speech on Iraq/Iran this week that clearly laid out the neocon game underway:

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq and now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran. And we have to stop them...
To understand exactly what the administration is trying to do with Iran, we need to go back to the beginning of the Bush Administration and look at how they took us to war with Iraq.
In the spring of 2002, the nation was struggling to recover from the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11. At the same time, a group of Bush Administration neoconservatives, like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were strategizing for ways to start a war with Iraq. And suddenly, instead of reacting to 9/11 by working to protect America from terrorists, they saw a political opportunity to promote their right-wing ideological agenda and demonize anyone who disagreed with them...
So after 9/11, instead of focusing on the terrorist threat, George Bush started promoting a radical new neoconservative doctrine he called, quote, "preventive war" -- which would soon become part of his argument for war in Iraq.
Here's what they mean by preventive war -- if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don't exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort...
But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America...
When I am president, I will immediately withdraw 40-50,000 troops, launch a diplomatic offensive to invest all local, national, and regional parties in the comprehensive political solution that will end the violence, and will completely withdraw all combat troops within 9 to 10 months.
The bottom line is simple -- no combat troops; no combat missions; no combat, period. Not sometime to be determined, not by 2013. By the end of my first year as president, by the end of 2009...

etc.

Sounds like a blogger.

Was John Edwards a Senator? (none / 0) (#11)
by Geekesque on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 07:58:11 PM EST

I keep on hearing that, but he never mentions his record in the Senate.


Heh (none / 0) (#12)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:14:34 PM EST

He has a few great big huge mistakes to make up for, that's for sure.


So does Obama have some mistakes. (none / 0) (#15)
by pioneer111 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:56:20 PM EST

Like funding the war for two years while saying he is against it. At least Edwards voted against the funding which Obama had stated that if you vote for it, you are being steamrolled by Bush.

And coal to liquid.

And I don't remember any strong statement for immigration reform.

Being in the senate presents challenges if the system is corrupt.


Edwards didnt vote on any thing (none / 0) (#17)
by Jgarza on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:35:32 PM EST

Remember southern white man who says he could compete in the south would have lost his senate seat so he didn't run.

He did however vote to authorize the war.


: Edwards would have won NC (none / 0) (#24)
by pioneer111 on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 03:05:35 PM EST

You are wrong. He would have won his seat. Unlike Lieberman he resigned to run for the presidency.
From Fox News exit polls (and they were not likely to favor Edwards)

In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards (search). If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr (search), it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent -- 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.
Where is your data from?
If Edwards had been the top of the ticket he would have won the presidency for Democrats. Kerry would not run one single ad in NC. NC loved Edwards but not Kerry.
Edwards won his senate seat from an incumbent Republican in a red state. That is quite the achievement.

Thats because his campaign sucks (none / 0) (#18)
by Jgarza on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:40:45 PM EST

and bloggers are the only member of the democratic coalition he has left to compete for. SO he panders, and some bloggers are even dumb enough to fall for it. short memories.

If he did by some long shot win the nomination, bloggers can't take him to the white house, so hill flip flop some more and pander to someone else.

Pandering to the antiwar folks isn't because he has seen the light, he is desperate!


What is Clinton's position on DL ? (none / 0) (#13)
by RedHead on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:27:47 PM EST

Fine, fine, bash away.

But what is Clinton's position on DL? She gave an interview on CNN yesterday, and she once again refused to take a position.

yet, here, she receives a pass for failing to lead.

: I dont see how it is an either or (none / 0) (#20)
by Jgarza on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:52:04 PM EST

Since her flip flop brought her back to the correct side of this issue though, i say Hill is less of a douche on this one.