How liberal is Dick Gephardt?

[George_Bonanza]

He's anti-free trade yet he stood with Bush in the photo and caved in the IWR negotiations. So what is he?

[JohnKleeb]

1. I would say

more so of a moderate on social issues
pretty liberal on economics including labor
hawkish on foreign policy
I have been disappointed in him but I like his views on labor a lot.

[George_Bonanza]

2. I bring this up because

At another board, somebody, a die-hard "all-Dems-are-sellouts-even-DK" Green party fan, remarked that Gephardt was more liberal than Kerry because of his NAFTA stance and anti-Bush tax cut stance. I know this is not true, but I can't really explain why. Or is it true, which I doubt.

[JohnKleeb]

3. I dont know

I dont think its true either but Gephardt is probably one of the better ones when it comes to labor, I really like him for that, I admit I am all for Kucinich till he drops out but I like what I read on Gephardt's site about a Teacher Corps.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Did You Point Out The Kerry Amendment To NAFTA?

(Nader-founded) Public Citizen:

"The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment.

In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides."

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

The Kerry Amendment to the Baucus-Grassley fast-track trade bill would have limited expansion of NAFTA-style corporate lawsuits to more countries.

Under NAFTA, foreign corporations gained broad powers to sue US taxpayers for financial damages if our environmental, health, or land protection laws interfere with their businesses.

The Kerry Amendment would have ensured that foreign investors have no greater rights than US citizens under the US Constitution.

http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/2002/kerry.asp

WASHINGTON - May 21 - Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry, sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations.

"By voting against the Kerry amendment, the Senate has paved the way for more backdoor corporate assaults on laws that protect our air, water and land," said David Waskow, Friends of the Earth's trade policy coordinator. "The Senate should be protecting the health and safety of Americans, not watching the backs of wealthy polluters who make big campaign contributions."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

"The current Fast Track bill is an environmental nightmare," said Carroll Muffett, director of international programs for Defenders of Wildlife. "The Kerry Amendment would have fixed one of the biggest problems with it. Without Kerry, Fast Track is just a license for unchecked environmental destruction."

http://www.charitywire.com/charity51/03074.html

Unlike the amendment sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, the Baucus-Grassley Amendment does not set the U.S. Constitution as the benchmark for the scope of property rights available to foreign investors in the United States.

The Kerry Amendment would repair the investment model of NAFTA. Under the Kerry Amendment, a foreign investor would be required to demonstrate that the policy in question was enacted primarily with discriminatory intent against foreign investors or investments.

The Kerry Amendment is based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on expropriation in that it would guarantee that future trade agreements improve upon the NAFTA model and restrict such investment protection actions to only those cases where government action causes a physical invasion of property or the denial of all economic or productive use of that property.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0515-04.htm

Dear (Decision Maker),

I am writing to ask you to support the Kerry Amendment to FAST TRACK. The Baucus-Grassley Trade Bill is not good enough. I would appreciate your support for this amendment. Specifically, the amendment will:

1. Ensure that foreign investors don't get greater rights than US citizens or investors. We need to make sure that the US Constitution is the benchmark for investor treatment.

2. Clarify the definition of expropriation in future trade deals to conform with the US Constitution and recent US Supreme Court rulings.

3. Protect US laws on public health, safety and the environment from attack by investor-state lawsuits.

4. Ensures that minimum treatment under international law is defined in a way that follows the US Constitution. We don't want to follow that of some other country.

5. Require diplomatic check. Before a corporation could go into one of the secret trade tribunals to sue for taxpayer compensation (avoiding the domestic court system), they should have to check in with their own government.

This amendment will be voted upon soon. I urge you to vote for it and keep the problems that are already happening with NAFTA Chapter 11 from happening under future trade agreements.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address

http://www.unionvoice.org/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2005

[George_Bonanza]

5. I just did

Got any more ammunition? I pointed out Kerry's stellar work in combatting corporate excess and protecting small business, as well as his work in the SBC in the senate (small business committee).

[DrFunkenstein]

6. On Free Trade?

I think this thread I just started gives another look at Kerry's broader picture for progressive-minded free trade:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=92014

You can also mention that Kerry has NEVER accepted a PAC or soft money contribution in ANY of his Senate races. Which is porbably why he has a 96.5% LIFETIME score from LCV - the highest in the race.

Here he is on reducing lobbyist influence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=90219

And it is always good to mention Kerry's health care plan, which also deals with curbing corporate excess:

John Kerry’s bold and responsible health plan will:

1. Let any American - if they choose - buy into the same health plan that the President and Members of Congress give themselves - with subsidies for those who can't afford insurance.

2. Automatically cover every child in America by expanding upon state Medicaid programs - with no applications and no questions asked.

3. Build on the system we have, rather than create a government-run bureaucracy with no choice and sky-rocketing costs.

4. Cover 75% of the cost for catastrophic cases, reducing the burden on insurance companies and lowering premiums by as much as 10%.

5. Reduce costs by emphasizing preventive care before expensive procedures become necessary.

6. Cut prescription drug price-skimming by enormous corporate middlemen that buy in bulk cheaply, but refuse to pass on the savings.

7. Slash medical bureaucracy and waste by up to 50% through new technology such as the digital record-keeping of medical information.

8. Eliminate medical errors by up to 88% through this technology, saving the lives of up to 80,000 people each and every year.

9. Control costs by weeding out meritless malpractice lawsuits without taking away patients’ rights.

10. Provide targeted tax-credits to make health coverage both manageable and affordable for small businesses.

11. Offer the unemployed a 75% tax-credit to either buy into the Congressional Health Plan or pay for the coverage they already have.

12. Provide the health care America’s veterans deserve and are much too often denied.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/intelligentstrength/files/

Note: I put this list together myself from his speech, so it is not Gospel (if I got anything wrong).

[sandnsea]

7. Gep's a Union Man

Through and through. An old-time traditional Democrat with probably slightly more traditional social values than a liberal. Being from St. Louis too, for my family that means you have your own values and don't push them on anybody else. I wouldn't call him a hawk, but he isn't likely to create a Dept of Peace either. He'd be a good President for workers and families I think. Just not as visionary as Kerry or Kucinich.

[JohnKleeb]

8. I guess I was wrong to call him a hawk and hes no dove either

I didnt know you were from St. Louis. Personally I would have him on my list for secretary of labor, he's the best on that. Oh and sandsnea, he's not visionary like DK and Kerry are but I was on his website the other day and he has this idea called the Teacher Corps modeled after the Peace Corps I think, it sounded interesting. I can see why a person like my grandfather would support Gephardt though, my grandfather was a union man or at the least a blue collar man, IIRC Gephardt is a little religious too as is my grandfather, they have different faiths, I can really see why he would support him. I don't know who he likes after Gephardt. I think he would like Kucinich but he doesn't know much.

[burr]

9. a Humphrey-style Democrat...

In the 70's and 80's Gephardt was quiet the conservative, and opposed Roe vs. Wade. In 1988 his entire primary bid centered on his moderate to conservative positions on social issues, in an attempt to win the primary support of Reagan Democrats and union voters.

But once he became the Majority Leader in the House, most of this began to change. He became pro-choice, he opposed excessive military spending, and he supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Progress was made, but Gephardt still has a conservative streak. He is still a member of the DLC, he supported the IRW against the wishes of most in his party, he backed the Patriot Act, and he refuses to support higher fuel-efficiency standards as part of his "Apollo program".

On the good side he was the first to make national healthcare a serious issue in this campaign, he is the only candidate other than Dean to support the repeal of all shrub's taxcuts, and he supports legislation establishing universal pensions...an important longterm step toward strengthening the Social Security system.

[JohnKleeb]

10. he's good on unions still and I like that

[burr]

11. so do I...

but like any politician, he will shift his positions if we don't hold him accountable. In a debate back in 1988..Gore mocked Gephardt by saying "them's my views, and if you don't like them, I'll change them."

This has been the hardest primary for me to work through. In 1992 I quickly decided to support Tsongas, in 2000 it took me no time to go with Bradley. But with this group, I have another favorite for each passing day of the week. Now my greatest fear is going into the voting booth in March, and still not knowing who to vote for!

[loyalsister]

12. Sells out women

2000
Voted for the PBA ban that did not include a health exception.

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2000&rollnumber=104

1998
He voted to override Clinton on an earlier PBA ban bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1998&rollnumber=325


Aye on Unborn Victims of Violence Act

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1999&rollnumber=464

Not real good on separation of church and state, either.

H J RES 78

Constitutional Amendment - Declares that: (1) to secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed; and (2) neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1998&rollnumber=200

I have no problem with freedom OF and FROM religion, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of an outward expression of religion seems radically theocratic to me.