Pro: "The decision about whether to become a parent is one of the most important life decisions that a woman can face. She should make it with her family, her doctor, and in the context of her religious and ethical values; government and politicians should not make the decision for her. John Edwards supports a woman's constitutional right to choose...As president, he will protect and defend the right to choose and reverse the damage that has been done by President Bush's anti-choice agenda."
"A Woman's Right to Choose," John Edwards' official candidate website (accessed Nov. 20, 2007)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Lord knows, if you don't agree with what we stand for, and you don't believe in us, our character and our ability to lead this country, you should not vote for us, no matter what it means for the general election."
Democratic Presidential Debate, hosted by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, Myrtle Beach, SC, Jan. 21, 2008
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "...The other is the rise and strength of China, which they've done virtually nothing about on any front, I mean, ranging from China sending dangerous toys into the United States to our trade relationship with China to, as Robert just mentioned, their buildup of their military, which they're doing opaquely. We know very little about what they're actually doing. On top of that, they're obsessed with their own internal economic development, and that results in them propping up bad regimes, like Sudan, like Iran. They're doing incredible damage to the environment. So the answer to the question is, America continues to have serious economic leverage with the Chinese - and diplomatic leverage with the Chinese."
Democratic Presidential Debate, hosted by National Public Radio, Des Moines, IA, Dec. 4, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Reengage with the World's Major Powers: Pressure China to commit to international laws on issues like trade, climate change and human rights."
"The Plan to Build One America: Bold Solutions for Real Change," John Edwards' official candidate website (accessed Jan. 29, 2008)
Pro: "The goal of our policy in Cuba must be the promotion of democracy and human rights. I support sanctions that target Fidel Castro's regime but help the innocent Cuban people, allowing trade for food and medical supplies that help ease the horrible burdens they suffer. Full sanctions should not be lifted until Castro and his brutal regime are gone. At the same time, along with our allies, we must increase our support and assistance for dissidents and democracy advocates inside Cuba who are struggling to be free."
"Candidates on the Issues: Cuba," WSVN/Channel 7 FOX News (Associated Press), Jan. 29, 2004
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "A Comprehensive Plan for U.S. and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Action to End the Genocide in Darfur:
John Edwards believes we should work with NATO, one of the world's most effective security organizations, to make sure the UN [United Nations] process will be as rapid, tough, and effective as possible...Edwards called for a combination of U.S. and NATO actions to accelerate the peacekeeping process and stop the genocide.
President Bush should reverse his decision to delay new American sanctions on 29 companies owned or controlled by the Sudanese government.
American airlift capabilities, logistical support and intelligence operations should be deployed to assist U.N. and African Union peacekeeping efforts in Darfur.
The U.S. should convene within the next 30 days an emergency meeting of NATO's leadership to act on Darfur."
"A Plan For Action In Darfur And Uganda," John Edwards' official candidate website (accessed Jan. 9, 2008)
Pro: "KING: ...Senator Edwards, I know you agree with capital punishment.
EDWARDS: Yes...
KING: ... why do you favor capital?
EDWARDS: Because I think there are some crimes -- those men who dragged James Byrd behind that truck in Texas, they deserve the death penalty. And I think there are some crimes that deserve the ultimate punishment."
Democratic Presidential Debate moderated by Larry King, Los Angeles, Feb. 26, 2004
Con: "Let me say first, this is something I donâ€â„¢t have to read about in a book. Iâ€â„¢ve seen it up close. I saw what happened when the mill that my dad worked in all his life, and I worked in myself when I was young, closed and the jobs went somewhere else. It was not just devastating to him and his pride and his dignity. It was devastating to the community, and the same thing has happened all over America...
...[W]e need to eliminate all tax breaks for companies who are taking their jobs overseas and getting a tax break for doing it."
All-American Presidential Forums, hosted by PBS, Howard University, Washington, D.C., June 28, 2007
Pro: "Demand Strong Labor Laws: Many overseas workers work 12 to 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without the right to form an independent union. Requiring our trade partners to adopt and enforce basic workers' rights will prevent a global race to the bottom and help build a global middle class. Edwards believes that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization: the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibitions against forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. Edwards will pursue these goals through linkage to U.S. trade preference programs, any new bilateral trade agreements, and future World Trade Organization negotiations."
"Smarter Trade That Puts Workers First," John Edwards' official candidate website (accessed Jan. 9, 2008)
Con: "George Bush's No Child Left Behind law is not working for schools, teachers and â€" most importantly â€" our children, and it needs to be radically overhauled."
"Restoring the Promise of America's Schools," John Edwards' official campaign website (accessed Jan. 29, 2008)
Pro: "Over the past 20 years, tuition has risen by far more than family income and, this year, it has increased by as much as 30 or 40 percent in some states. College debt now averages $17,000, the most ever, and it is increasing rapidly."
"Q&A: The Democratic Candidates on Higher Education," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 23, 2004
Pro: 10Questions.com question: "...[W]ould you support a fair and clean election system that takes big money out of politics [and] that provides public funding for candidates who agree to spending limits and give up all special interest money?"
John Edwards: "Yes, I absolutely support that kind of public financing of political campaigns in America and would make it a priority as President. I actually believe that these powerful, well financed interests have entirely too much influence and control over this democracy. We have to take their power away from them. One of the ways, on behalf of the American people, and one of the ways we can take their power away from them is to publicly finance campaigns."
Reply to a question posted on 10questions.com (accessed Jan. 9, 2008)
Pro: "Senator Edwards believes that is is essential that all voting machines produce a verifiable paper ballot. To ensure security, these machines should be programmed with an open source code for complete transparency, and election results should be safeguarded by voter-verified paper records."
Letter from John Edwards' National Campaign Manager David Bonior to President of Open Voting Consortium Alan Dechert, June 21, 2007
Con: Cosponsored the "Budget Amendment, FY2004" (S.Amd.272) to prevent consideration of drilling Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] from budget bill
Pro: "Raise Fuel Economy Standards: American cars and trucks are less efficient than they were two decades ago, despite the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Standards in China, Japan, and the European Union are between 40 and 100 percent higher. Edwards will raise standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2016, a step that could single-handedly reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day."
"Achieving Energy Independence & Stopping Global Warming Through A New Energy Economy," John Edwards' official candidate website (accessed Jan. 9, 2008)
Pro: "We made a mistake by disengaging from Kyoto initially. That was a huge mistake because there's no way to fix it when America is not involved. The problem is, in order for us to have a global solution, Kyoto, any international treaty on climate change, has to include the developing world. It has to include China and India. Right now since America is such a polluter on this issue, we don't have any credibility. So I think the starting place on this is to fix our own house and then help structure a new international treaty."
Pro: "...I believe in the Second Amendment and I think it's important for hunters rights to be protected and it's part of my culture and the way I grew up, but I don't think you need an AK-47 to hunt and I think there are a number of things that we can do including a renewal of the assault weapons ban, closing the gun show loophole so that we make sure that we have the information that we need. I would add to that that in light of what's happened at Virginia Tech that we need to do a better job of making sure the registry that's used for the instant check includes people who've had a history of some mental problems because it's a spotted history but there was certainly some history about this gunman."
"Clinton, Edwards, Obama on Gun Control," Radio Iowa, Apr. 22, 2007
Pro: "Q: Which taxes would you raise to pay for health care?
A: I would get rid of Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year. My universal health care plan would require employers to cover all their employees or pay into a fund that covers the cracks in the health care system--mental health parity; chronic care; preventative care; long-term care; subsidized health care costs. Give people a choice, including a government choice. And require that every single American be covered."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Voted Yes on the "Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002" (S.812) on July 31, 2002:
"Title II - Importation of Prescription Drugs...
Declares that enforcement efforts concerning importation of prescription drugs by individuals should focus on significant threats to public health rather than importation that is clearly for personal use, particularly importation from Canada."
"S.812: Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002," GovTrack.us website, July 31, 2002
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Well, first of all, we should be proud of the fact that because we've had so many workers come into this country who deserve a path to earn citizenship and who are working to support their families have made America richer, culturally more diverse, and they are in fact performing jobs that, in some cases at least, would be difficult to find others to perform. So for that reason they're -- they are an important part of our economy, and I do believe they're an important part of our economy."
Pro: "...[T]he other thing that we need to do is not just recognize the economic benefits of these workers, but understand in many cases they are being abused, they are being taken advantage of, their rights are not being protected. And it is enormously important that we have comprehensive immigration reform so that those who in fact are working 10 hours a day in 105-degree heat have the same sort of worker rights that other Americans have. They are no less human, and no less value as human beings, and they deserve those same rights, which is why there needs to be a comprehensive immigration reform and path to earn citizenship."
Con: "First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won't do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we'll make nuclear fuel available to you, we'll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don't think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because their economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don't do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you've seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they're the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.
Now that's on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that's the first thing that'll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they're close to, but we've got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that's the second thing that'll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful."
"Edwards On Iran," by Ezra Klein, The American Prospect, Feb. 2, 2007
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake...
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."
"The Right Way in Iraq," Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2005
[Editor's Note: Prior to John Edwards' Nov. 13, 2005 Pro position above, his position was Con as indicated in his Oct. 13, 2003 statement below.]
Con: "[Chris] Matthews: ...Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
[John] Edwards: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people...
Matthews: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president....Would you have gone to Iraq?
Pro: "And we need the Congress to stand firm and strong. If the President vetoes this bill [H.R. 1591] establishing a timetable for withdrawal], they should send him back another bill with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. If he vetoes that, they should send him another one back with a timetable for withdrawal. They should not back down from this President and let him continue from this. We have to show strength and courage."
"Strong Iraq War Remarks of John Edwards at California Democratic Party Convention," California Progress Report website, Apr. 30, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "...[W]e must stand by our ally and partner Israel, ensuring its security while doing everything in our power to bring peace and stability to the region."
"Reengaging with the World," John Edwards' official campaign website (accessed Jan. 29, 2008)
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn't make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up their land in order to advance peace.
Israel can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas. While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel."
"Edwards: 'Iran Must Know World Won't Back Down'," www.rawstory.com, Jan. 23, 2007
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "[Katie] Couric: So how important do you think it [infidelity] is in the grand scheme of things?
Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.
Couric: So you think it's an appropriate way to judge a candidate?
Edwards: Yeah. But I don't think it's controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the...stories we've all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don't think it controls the issue. But I think it's certain[ly]...something reasonable for people to consider."
"Candidates Offer Views on Infidelity," CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, Dec. 19, 2007
Con: "I do not support -- I am against the president's constitutional amendment [defining marriage as between a man and woman] on gay marriage. I don't personally support gay marriage myself, but my position has always been that it's for the states to decide, and it's for the state of Georgia to decide or any other state to decide. And I think the federal government should honor those decisions."
"Edwards to Bush: Kerry Hasn't Won Yet," by Tom Raum, Washington Post, Feb. 25, 2006
Not Clearly Pro or Con: Q: "I would like to thank you for saying you would stop the raids against medical marijuana patients with their doctors' permission. I would like to ask you how you will keep patients like myself and others out of jail for using it as medicine and lesser medications that cause harmful side effects?"
John Edwards: "What I've said, for those of you who don't know what he's talking about, these raids that are being used -- you obviously follow this very closely -- these raids that are being done against patients, I will not do as President of the United States and would put a stop to. What I've also said is, I really think that we need to put the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] in charge of this instead of having -- right now it's just a political football. I think if we give the FDA the responsibility and have them determine how to treat this -- if somebody like you who needs medical marijuana to ease your pain and there's not other medications that can accomplish it, then the FDA can say that. But what we have right now is a situation where it's a huge political football, it's used for political rhetoric, and the result is a lot of people are being punished as a result. And so that's what I would do, I would put it under the responsibility of the FDA and I would stop these raids. That's what I would do."
Conversation between Clayton Holton, a volunteer for Granite Staters for Medical Marijana, and John Edwards, Sep. 8, 2007
Pro: "...[T]hese raids that are being done against [medical marijuana] patients, I will not do as President of the United States and would put a stop to. What I've also said is, I really think that we need to put the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] in charge of this instead of having -- right now it's just a political football. I think if we give the FDA the responsibility and have them determine how to treat this -- if somebody like you who needs medical marijuana to ease your pain and there's not other medications that can accomplish it, then the FDA can say that. But what we have right now is a situation where it's a huge political football, it's used for political rhetoric, and the result is a lot of people are being punished as a result. And so that's what I would do, I would put it under the responsibility of the FDA and I would stop these raids. That's what I would do."
"Senator John Edwards on Medical Marijuana," conversation between John Edwards and Clayton Holton from the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, YouTube.com, Sep. 8, 2007
Con: "Let there be no doubt that the Bush Administration's new talk of a draft is a profound measure of how much this President has failed our brave men and women in the military, and the American people. This is exactly the wrong way to go. Our all-volunteer force has helped make America what it is today.
I call on all Members of Congress - Republican, Democrat, and Independent - to speak with one voice, and say 'no' to a draft."
"Edwards Blasts Bush Administration On Draft Comments," John Edwards' official candidate website, Aug. 11, 2007
Pro: "It is long past time to end the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. It is critical to our national security that we have the best people in our military. Gay men and women have continually served our country with honor and bravery, and we should honor their commitment and never turn away anyone who is willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation.
This is an issue of fundamental fairness - and our military ought to treat everyone fairly."
"Edwards Statement On The Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy," John Edwards' official candidate website, Feb. 28, 2007
Pro: "In a manner consistent with the First Amendment, faith-based charities should be able to participate in delivering services. But they should also meet the same anti-discrimination standards as other charities receiving government support.
We should be encouraging faith-based initiatives in a way that values the important work of these organizations and does not divide Americans."
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "My faith is very important to me, and the same is true of John Kerry...
The two of us talk about our faith - with each other...Our faith is important to us and it's always been important to us, and people should know that...
I don't think that faith should be used to divide us."
"Edwards: Religion Should Not Divide Voters," FOXNews.com (Associated Press), Sep. 30, 2004
Con: "Privatizing a portion of Social Security would cost the Social Security Trust Fund more than $1 trillion, making it even harder for us to meet our responsibilities to our seniors. This kind of step would also erode the most basic guarantee of Social Security, exposing millions of Americans to an impoverished retirement. But I do support efforts to increase retirement savings outside of Social Security."
"Candidates on the Issues: Social Security," Washington Post (Associated Press), Feb. 24, 2004
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research...
We very much appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001, the date of the policy announcement. However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored."
Letter written to President Bush, signed by 58 U.S. Senators, including John Edwards, June 7, 2004
Con: "...[W]e need to get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for rich people which have distorted the tax system in America. I would use that money to pay for universal health care, to make sure everyone's covered."
Democratic Presidential Debate, Howard University, Washington, D.C., hosted by PBS, June 28, 2007
None Found: No position found as of Oct. 30, 2007. ProCon.org also emailed the Edwards campaign on Oct. 10, 2007 with this question. They did not respond to our email or follow up call.
Pro: "We're going to take the steps that need to be taken to restore America's moral leadership in the world, and that means a whole group of things: stopping the profiling, stopping the illegal -- and I use that term intentionally -- the illegal spying on the American people that this president has been engaged in. Closing Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment. No more secret prisons, no more rendition."
Con: "George Bush has a long record of trampling on the Constitution and failing to be straight with the American people. Yesterday we learned that -- even after the Justice Department abandoned its defense of torture -- it continued to write memos endorsing the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA. Today, the president asserted that 'we don't torture.' Pardon me, but I have my doubts that George Bush is finally being straight with us.
As president, I will work to restore America's moral authority in the world by upholding the rule of law and safeguarding our civil liberties. I reject the Bush Administration's twisted logic justifying torture. I will release the legal opinions justifying it, and end the abuse of classification and legal privilege to hide un-American legal judgments. Saying no to torture will protect our troops and our values by upholding the Geneva Conventions anywhere American security forces, military or civilian, are engaged."
"Edwards Statement on Justice Department Torture Memos," John Edwards' official candidate website, Oct. 5, 2007