Candidate Positions

Original source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100008849/index.htm

On globalization

“It’s not complicated. If you have capital and you’re well educated, the odds are that a global economy will benefit you. But the vast majority of Americans don’t fit in that category.”

Original source: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/

The Edwards Plan:

Cap and Reduce Global Warming Pollution: Edwards will set an economy-wide limit on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. He will build on the precedent of the Clean Air Act of 1990 — which limited pollution causing acid rain through a sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system — to reduce pollution in a cost-effective and flexible manner.

Use Science to Set the Caps: Edwards will cap greenhouse gases at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. He will cap greenhouse pollution starting in 2010, reduce it by at least 15 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050, consistent with the most aggressive plans under consideration in Washington.

Make Polluters Pay: Edwards will auction off a portion of the pollution permits to raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs. Other permits will be sold or given away.

Lead the World toward a New Global Climate Change Treaty: Climate change is an international problem and the U.S. can never solve it alone. China is building the equivalent of one large coal-fired power plant a week and is expected to pass the U.S. as the world’s largest polluter of carbon dioxide in 2009. [NYT, 3/17/2007; WSJ, 3/3/2007]
To lead the world toward a new, effective climate change treaty, Edwards will:

Make Our Own Commitments to Restore Our Moral Leadership: The U.S. has 4 percent of the world’s population but produces a quarter of its carbon dioxide emissions. It is one of only three developed nations that has refused to limit its greenhouse gas pollution. By adopting caps, Edwards will help the U.S. regain credibility in the world without sacrificing American competitiveness. [Irish Times, 2/14/2007; Greenwire, 10/31/2006]

Original source: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251080

The president continues to tout private school vouchers. I oppose them because they divert resources and energy from reform and divert students into the only schools that don’t have to meet high standards. Proponents advocate two things — competition and parental choice — but misleadingly suggest these are only possible with private school vouchers.

Competition is good for schools, and parental choice is good for kids. But we can give kids competition and choice within our accountable, public system.

Today, many public school choice programs are having trouble because there aren’t enough schools or parents involved. We shouldn’t give up on these programs; we should make them work by making a billion-dollar investment in public school choice. We’ll say to districts that need it most: If you’ll provide universal public school choice for your students, we’ll help you pay for it.

You should give every parent a choice where to send their kids to school; provide transportation within the district; encourage charter schools, making sure they meet the same standards as other schools, and shutting down the ones that don’t; and make the new funds portable so that a student brings money to the school he chooses and takes money from the school he leaves. These policies will help fulfill the promise of public school choice.

Original source:http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=1AE9B6AE-D8A7-6619-6DA493C9771D0676

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards unveiled a rural agenda this past week that called for a crackdown on gun crimes. “I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it’s important for hunters rights to be protected. It’s part of my culture because of the way I grew up,” Edwards said during a news conference Friday night in Des Moines. “But I don’t think you need an AK-47 to hunt…There’s some weapons that are not necessary for sportsmen and hunters.”

Edwards, who backs a renewal of the assault weapons ban, also mentioned the breakdown in the Virginia system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to obtain a gun in the first place. “We need to do a better job of making sure that the registry that’s being used for the instant check includes people who’ve had some history of mental problems,” Edwards said. “There’s a spotted history, but there certainly was some history about this gunman.”

Original source: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/20/114718/542

Q: Border security and illegal immigration are a threat to our security and our future:

A: We have three choices on illegal immigration.

1. Pretend that there is no problem.
2. Find 11-12 million people who live in the country and deport them.
3. Solve the problems that arise mostly with our southern border.

Of course we know there is a problem. We can address the problem at our southern border by assigning more personnel and equipping them with better technology to police the border.

As for the people who are living here now who came illegally, this is an issue that is used to divide Americans. But what we need to do is to do what is morally right and what is practical to move ahead. The practical thing we can do is to provide a path to citizenship to those who are here illegally but are otherwise law-abiding. First, they will have to come forward and admit that they came here illegally and pay a fine. They will have to learn to speak English. Then they can move through the process for citizenship.

Original source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stemcell12apr12,1,6449302.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Former Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, strongly backs the research, while Democratic hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois co-sponsored the Senate bill that would expand the number of embryonic stem-cell lines eligible for federally funded research.

 Original source: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/4/18/12734/6449

“I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.”