Doin' The NAFTA Hustle
Posted February 27th, 2008 by Da King
Last night, during round 20 of the Democratic pseudo-debates in Cleveland (which I nickname RABID MSNBC DOGS ATTACK HILLARY), Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred about health care, NAFTA, and Iraq. It was absolutely (yawn) electrifying. The candidates staked out their clear differences on the issues. In summary:
Hillary is for universal health care. Obama is for universal health care.
Hillary wants to renegotiate NAFTA. Obama wants to renegotiate NAFTA.
Hillary wants to pull the troops out of Iraq. Obama wants to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Note the subtle policy differences. You'll have to look closely, because they are very nuanced. These are two very smart Ivy league graduates here. If you are just a regular person, it's probably over your head, and you should just vote for the person the media tells you to vote for. That would be best. Resistance is futile. In other words, Vote for Obama. Vote for Obama. Vote for Obama.
Rather than listen to candidates who agree about absolutely everything pretend to argue, I propose that Barack and Hillary become co-presidents since they are the same person, politically speaking. It would be unfair to choose one over the other, and picking only one would probably be harmful to the loser's self esteem. No self-respecting liberal would want that, right ? That would be mean, fascist, and way harsh. Sounds like something Dick Cheney would do. Hillary even has prior experience as co-president. She will be ready on day one, and then Barack could take day two, after Hillary gives him the White House tour. Following that, they could alternate days, with each getting two weekends off per month - with pay, of course. As an additional bonus, we'd get the first black president AND the first woman president at the same time ! History in the making, times two. Maybe Hillary would even return the White House silverware the Clintons stole on the way out the door in 2001. It's win-win folks, except for you taxpayers. Unfortunately for you, Hillary and Obama are both liberal Democrats, and will most likely have a Democratic-led Congress. Bend over. The Dems will be "investing" in all kinds of stuff to "help" you. Translated, that means you'll be broke, but what a small price to pay for all that history-making. Don't be so selfish. It's only money.
Ohio has become a major battleground in the Democratic primaries. The Democratic presidential nomination may hinge on who wins Ohio. As a result, both Dems have discovered they are against NAFTA, much more against it than they ever were before, as a matter of fact. And when they are talking to a group of blue collar Ohio factory workers, the candidates find they HATE NAFTA with a passion, and always have (except for when they were quoted saying NAFTA was beneficial. Ignore the man behind the curtain).
Here's Barack Obama speaking about NAFTA a few days ago:
"Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have."
Here's Barack Obama speaking about NAFTA a couple weeks ago:
"It's a game [the Washington status quo] where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart".
Now, the merits of NAFTA are definitely a subject for debate, and maybe I'm not a smart Ivy league grad like Mr. Obama, but I'm pretty sure about one thing. NAFTA, a free trade agreement between Canada, the USA, and Mexico, isn't responsible for any jobs being shipped overseas. Those 3 countries are all part of the same land mass, North America, and there are no seas between them. I learned a little something in 5th grade geography class, in between passing notes to my puppy love Wendy.
Obama also voted to expand NAFTA into Peru, a move not supported by the AFL-CIO, and a pretty bizarre move for someone who claims he was always against NAFTA.
And there's the rub. Obama WASN'T always against NAFTA, unless by "always" he means "always since I set foot in Ohio in 2008 needing to be against it to win Ohio and secure the Democratic presidential nomination". Maybe it's like Bill Clinton's definition of the word "is", you know, malleable.
Here's Obama talking about NAFTA in 2004, according to AP:
"NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States." His comments, as reported in 2004, were that NAFTA had brought enormous benefits to his state.
Thats called doin' the NAFTA hustle.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Da King, I understand your problem with walking away and letting them bankrupt the country. But, hell we are already there and the Reps. ignore the real issues as well. The only difference is in who will get us to thrid nation staus faster. I to fear a collection of ruth badder-ginsburg (sp.? but I dont give a damn) reiventing the laws but the sooner we hit the wall the better. We are becoming increasingly a nation of instentaneous gratification and ENTITLEMENT. The longer this malise goes on the less chance we have of the citizens being willing and I mean all people to make the necessary sacrifices to get back to fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.
I too never beleived a third party would emerge but after the election enough people may be ready to put petty differences aside and move in that direction despite the attempt by the mainstream press to demonize the movement.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
This is actually what Obama said about the Peru issue….
"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter’s protests to the contrary.
He also affirmed his support for free trade. “I am not going to say on a blanket basis that I’m going to vote against trade agreements,” Obama said. “We cannot draw a moat around the u.s. economy b/c china is still trading, India is still trading.” "
Did Obama say he wanted to simply throw NAFTA out the window? No. He said he wanted to reform the agreement.
In addition, you are wrong about the NAFTA/job losses overseas connection. Instead of Mexico winding up with all the new low paying jobs, as was expected, re-sellers, like Wal-Mart, found a lower wage offer over in China.
What Obama has consistently said is that he will offer incentives to keep good jobs in America and disincentives to those who send them out. Jobs are related to technological advancement and education. Obama speaks to those needs frequently.
He's a realist, not anti-trade. The extremists will paint him as an isolationist panderer…..but that's why they are called extremists.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
1. Bravo, Fred. Very well said.
2. Regarding NAFTA.
Look at today's lead editorial in today's Akron Beacon Journal –”Hopeless on NAFTA.” Even these guys see that attacking NAFTA is like beating a dead horse. It won't bring any jobs to Ohio by trying to undo NAFTA or to "reform" it along the lines that the Dims are talking about.
Why can't HC & BO look to the future on trade? Answer: Because much of their constituency base is tied to the past — like your gandpa's old industrial union like the constantly diminishing UAW, Steel Workers, etc.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I watched the debate, too, but I kept thinking the whole time how good a Dontino's steak sandwich would taste right about now……….
February 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Fred,
It is too early for a third party; the country is not ready to make the types of sacrifices it would take. Additionally, the Rs and the Ds, despite having wobbly legs, are still way too strong for it to happen now. Although, hopefully in the few years I have left we can move more in that direction….but such a movement would have to be without the media, without the parties, because they don't want it to happen. It's going to take some sort of free thinker with a whole lot of money without a history of party ties who can actually get people to buy into his/her ideas without being seen as some sort of nut. Unfortunately, I don't think da king has that kind of cash………..
February 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
da truth………….3rd party could prove quite interesting, but I also agree with the difficulties. While the media has a strong meddling talent, the mindset of generations also needs to be altered. People need to understand the differences associated with liberalism and conservatism and this needs to happen at the ground floor. Many years removed from k-12, I cannot recall any substantial focus on conservative studies. Teachers unions and liberal-minded instructors continue to dominate and dumb down the intellect of youth until they are trained to associate Republicans with the rich and Democrats with the working man. There needs to be an emphasis on educating children, not converting them. Once this is accomplished, media sound-bites and distorted coverage will lose their relevence and individuals will form strong convictions based on reason. People may go back to watching educational programs, reading books, and taking hikes………as opposed to yakkin' on cell phones, watching reality shows, and playing video games. As Fred says….instantaneous gratification is in.
Have many different opinions of NAFTA, but agree that it's not regulated or in our best interest, at present state. I always found it amusing how autoworker unions place the emphasis on their contract negotiations, buy American, and totally disregard the fact that most of the steel being utilized is shipped in from Russia, Japan, etc. Granted they don't have a choice, but common-sense dictates that someone would acknowledge this despairity. We have the capacity to produce the steel, but that's gone to hell and that's just a tip on the iceberg. Another thing that makes you go hmmmm. Problems are deeper than "Crawl-Mart". I would prefer to suspend "all" trade for a year, or until intelligent people could get a grasp and correct this system. There would be a major crippling effect, but that would be temporary and we're already at condition critical. The rebound would outweigh the disadvantages.
Brilliant minds at thought:
Clinton: I was for NAFTA before I was against it.
Obama: We can "hope" for "change".
McCain: Open borders, open trade…………what's the difference?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Alexander,
I'm not sure that the educational system is at much at fault as you say….although I agree that there are problems with how we educate children in this country.
I taught my children 2 rules in terms of their education, and they are the rules I live by 1) question everything, regardless of the source 2) believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. These rules have not won me alot of friends within my own D party (lol), but that's ok. In short, you are absolutely right in saying that until we teach children to question rather than to simply regurgitate information, nothing is going to change.
The problem I see, is that although you and I may think this way, the country has gone so far down the slippery slope of instant gratification that it may be too late to ever climb back up…….and as far as I can see, any of the Presidential candidates left standing are not going to do anything to change that.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
It is funny that Obama voted to expand NAFTA into Peru but sat there on stage the other night and railed against it. Just another politician.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
da truth………….well spoken and well received.
Politicians will never take the initiative to better inform their constituent base. It would be suicide. Instead, they rely on the ignorance of the majority to succeed. This is the most depressing factor.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Ironically, I've been saying this for weeks. Hopefully, Texas follows suit. The beauty of it is………..pollsters will be blinded by this. See link.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/republicans_vote_hillary/2008/02/28/76379.html?s=al&promo_code=4616-1
I'll easily pimp myself out for the primaries when it pertains to the balance of the supreme court.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
"Politicians will never take the initiative to better inform their constituent base. It would be suicide. Instead, they rely on the ignorance of the majority to succeed. This is the most depressing factor.'
Alexander, you said it all with that quote. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our political system.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Alexander, that link goes right to heart of something king and I have discussed before. Despite my D and his R, we agree that Mrs. Clinton cannot win a general election against any R candidate. I'm starting to think Obama can't either, but the Rs have been waiting for her for some time now, and she has no chance to win the Presidency. So, I will not be surprised if the Rs come out as Ds for a day. However, those of us on the left are not surprised by this. We've seen it coming for some time now….if she wins, so does McCain.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
***"Politicians will never take the initiative to better inform their constituent base. It would be suicide. Instead, they rely on the ignorance of the majority to succeed. This is the most depressing factor.'***
***Alexander, you said it all with that quote. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our political system.***
da truth, I was impressed by anybody in present company agreeing with Alexander and how he thinks about politicisns. However, I can, and do, take exception with you and all others who talk that way when I believe that there is a politician who is trying very hard to keep us informed. The problem is that he hasn't been involved in the game called primary politics this year but has been trying to get a base for that third party going. I read him all the time and have very little problem with agreeing with nearly every thing I read.
Ok, King and Boortz could grow a viable third party that both of us could go along with. King's brain and Boortz's money might do it. However my man isn't trying to start a third party as much as trying to educate people in established parties about the thoughts he generates from maybe the most fertile political brain around. Alright, I will admit that I could much easier succumb to the thinking of Newt Gingrich than become a blind follower of Obama. Since there is so little difference in the socialistic beliefs of Obama and Clinton when I say anything negative about one you can assume that I am talking about both, just as King says.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
roy says of Neil Boortz
"…trying to educate people in established parties about the thoughts he generates from maybe the most fertile political brain around."
The Reverend says: You know, fertile ground usually is fertile because it has a lot of manure in it.
roy again…
"I could much easier succumb to the thinking of Newt Gingrich than become a blind follower of Obama."
To which The Reverend says: Succombing to the thinking of Gingrich would be like succombing to carbon monoxide. Asphyxiation from noxious fumes.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
There is much to be said for Rush's advise in that Newsmax link you provided of voting for Comrade Hillary on March 4 in Ohio & Texas just to keep the "uncivil war" among the Dims going.
I myself don’t have the stomach to pull the lever for her, but more power to you if you can
This Dim primary is like the war between Iraq & Iran in the 1980's. It's almost irrelevant who wins. As long as both are weaken, America wins.
So yes, keep 'em fighting among themselves.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
C'mon Vince. By saying that, you are saying McCain strengthens America, and you know you don't believe that, either.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Proof that Hillary doesn't keep her promises from a major paper in upstate New York, the state she supposedly represents in the Senate:
http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/120427921794150.xml&coll=1
February 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Alex,
As much as I see an advantage for voting for Comrade Hillary, I still can do it. But I would like to see her win here next week.
++++
From: The American Thinker Online
Date: February 29, 2008
By: Rick Moran
Subject: Poll Shows Obama Pulling Away in Tx; gaining in OH
It appears that next Tuesday may very well prove to be Hillary Clinton's swan song. The latest Zogby/C-Span/Houston Chronicle Poll shows Senator Barack Obama pulling away in Texas while Ohio appears to be a dead heat:
Texas - Democrats
Clinton
42%
Obama
48%
Gravel
<1%
Someone else
3%
Not sure
7%
Ohio - Democrats
Clinton
44%
Obama
42%
Gravel
1%
Someone else
5%
Not sure
9%
It appears that Hillary just can't stop Obama's momentum no matter what she tries.
It should be said that Zogby has been on of the more unreliable barometers in this primary season. But the poll reflects similar gains by Obama in other polls.
Clinton is desperately trying to hold on to her white working class base in Ohio. If she wins there but loses in Texas does she stay in?
My guess is unless she loses both she will remain a candidate despite a chorus of entreaties from other Democrats pleading with her to get out of the race. She will probably make the argument that the Democrats don't have much of a chance in Texas during the November election anyway and that a victory in Ohio means her campaign is still viable.
If she loses both states and still insists on staying in, watch for a big name Democrat to sit down with her - sort of like an intervention for addiction - and tell her its over and she better get out.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Rev Red, I think if you read carefully what I said it wasn't at all that Neal Boortz is the one I see as the main political thinker of today. I believe that you could read a bit more carefully it was Newt Gingrich and since I read him and you refuse to do so because he was a Republican long ago, you can never know what he is saying today. His Solutions for American are not based on either Democrat or Republican thinking but on what he thinks would be best for the nation. You are too busy with your socialistic thinking to even look at what Gingrich is saying and therefor you are thinking about him in the 1990s. This is the 21st century and you need to come on up to where we are.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Obama is now telling Ohioans that he wants to change NAFTA while telling the Canadian government he has no plans to do so.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/more-on-that-ca.html
February 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Don't these people realize that we live in the age of the Internet, bloggers, talk radio, photo-taking cell phones, etc.?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Vince,
You say that keeping Hilary in it is good for the R's. Which, as everyone who reads this blog knows, you think anything R is good for the country, since everyone else is a Socialist. Yet, at the same time, you say
"I myself don’t have the stomach to pull the lever for her, but more power to you if you can."
So, you imply that even though you know what is best for America, you aren't willing to do it. Interesting.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Roy helps to spread yet another lie with his comment above.
Here's the truth….
The New York Observer managed to track down Austan Goolsbee, the Obama adviser who, according to the latest report on Canada TV, was the one who may have told a Canadian official that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely "campaign rhetoric."
And Goolsbee denies it:
“It is a totally inaccurate story,” he said. “I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.”
Meanwhile, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton also denies this latest round, via email:
This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
It looks like those Canadian knee padders are trying to slander the Manchurian Messiah now, too. Where will it end?
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 am
Rev,
You said, "In addition, you are wrong about the NAFTA/job losses overseas connection. Instead of Mexico winding up with all the new low paying jobs, as was expected, re-sellers, like Wal-Mart, found a lower wage offer over in China".
Huh ? You proved my point here. Walmart buying from China has nothing to do with NAFTA, which applies only to Canada/USA/Mexico.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 am
And both Obama and Hillary said they will terminate NAFTA if they can't renegotiate it.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 am
Vince,
You are right when you say terminating NAFTA won't bring jobs to Ohio. Canada and Mexico are two of our top three trading partners, and the majority of Ohio's exports go to those two countries. The isolationist days are long gone, and they won't be coming back. Our government should be concentrating on making our own companies more competitive in the world (by lowering our ridiculously high corporate tax rate, for one), not taking down free trade agreements.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 am
fred,
I'm up for that third party, but it's gonna take a boatload of money to unseat the Dem/Repub power duopoly. I think we'll have to ask the Saudis, lol.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
A third party?
To those who are dissatisfied with the state of today’s politics and call for a third party, does the following strike a cord?
“More Americans (42-percent) identify themselves as independents that either Democrats or Republicans. Astonishing as it may seem, a clear polarity of Americans have become hostile to the two parties that have defined our nation’s politics for the past century that they have preferred “neither of the above” even in the absence of a serious alternative. Political analysts like to talk about electoral “realignment” in favor of one party or another, but what is occurring here is something altogether different — we are experiencing a large-scale political dealignment.
“This striking dealignment suggests that our Democratic and Republican Parties have failed the two most important tests of American politics: the ability to unite a majority of citizens in a lasting coalition, and the ability to find workable solutions to the problems of our time. Having been captured by their own extremes, both parties are increasingly incapable of promoting majority views across a range of issues. Second, both remain so wedded to the ideas and institutions of the last century [the 20th Century] that neither has proven itself capable of rising to the challenges of the next. Our nation’s politics are dominated by two feuding dinosaurs that have outlived the world in which they evolved.”
This is from the opening page of the “Radical Center” (2002) by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind. This book makes an intriguing case for the creation of a radical center party that is a composite of Republican and Democratic principles. Such a party will have much that conservatives like and dislike as well as things that progressives like and dislike.
Halstead & Lind say that the conditions have been ripe for some time now for such a re-alignment to take place but that inertia and the status quo have frozen the political structure in place. Specifically, Halstead & Lind say that the Democratic Party is in the hands of the leftists & progressives while the GOP is held by the libertarians and the religious right.
They feel that it will take a major crisis of some sort to precipitate the actual re-alignment, as was the case in the past with, for example, the Civil War and the Great Depression.
These authors believe that already the coalitions that form the bases of the Democratic and Republican parties are beginning to fissure, perhaps irreparably. (This does seem to be the case today.)
But a third party is the unlikely to be the new centrist party. Historically, when third parties rose, if their ideas were attractive, they got co-opted by one of the major parties. This means either the Democrats or the Republican party is more likely to evolve into the a new centrist party than for a third party to assume that role.
This seems correct. Both parties have tremendous infrastructure & staffing that begins at the local level and reaches all the way up to the top nationally. This will not disappear.
To quote Halstead & Lind: “The future of American politics may well belong to the major party that is first to renounce its more extreme positions and embrace a new Radical Centrist agenda.“
Right now without a doubt that party appears to be the GOP. Why? Because, John McCain is the bane of conservatives precisely because he has taken centrist positions whereas B. Hussein Obama is a straight up-and-down liberal — a man in fact who has been the most liberal senator in Washington in the past year or so. McCain can [and has] work with Democrats; Obama has not [and probably can't] work with Republicans.
According to Halstead & Lind's thinking, if one of the major parties does evolve into a radical center party, those who are today's hard core progressives and conservatives, if they do not change with the times, will be left on the fringes of the political landscape. Some activists will move, others will not.
Agree or disagree with Halstead & Lind, the agruments and logic they present in "The Radical Center" cannot be dismissed.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOa3sXjqE4
Jack Nicholson endorese Hillary
Also a FUBAR by Obama:
Misleading Attack: Sen. Obama Flubs in Ohio
Earlier today, Sen. Obama attacked Hillary on Iraq by invoking Sen. Rockefeller and incorrectly saying that the WVA Senator opposed the 2002 Iraq vote. The truth is that Sen. Rockefeller voted for the war resolution - not against it as Sen. Obama suggested to the people of Ohio. This seems to be an Obama campaign talking point since its top strategist also claimed that Sen. Rockefeller voted against the war resolution when he was on national television this morning.
"Sen. Obama is so desperate to divert attention from his limited national security experience that he's not just misleading voters about Sen. Clinton, he's also misleading voters about his own supporters. That is not change you can believe in." — Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Interesting stuff, Vince. It occurs to me that most of the third parties we have today are not centrist (Libertarian, Green, Taxpayer's), which probably explains why they are marginal. Ross Perot's group was the last third party/independent group that made any real inroads, and Perot did have appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. I always wondered what would have happened if Perot hadn't quit in the middle at the peak of his support.
I agree with those authors in at least one sense. Elections are decided by the political center, not the left or right fringes. Most of the ideas may come from the left and right, but most voters don't really dwell there. I think most voters dislike both parties, and in general, the party that wins is the one disliked the least. After 8 years of Bush, that favors the Dems now.
I'd have to see which principles were chosen from the left and right to makeup that radical center party before I signed on, but since I'm one of the fringe dwellers, I'd probably be left out in the cold, lol.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Politics101,
Obama certainly did step in it with his comments about Jay Rockefeller. After reading that NIE on Iraq, Rockefeller came to the same conclusion as the majority of Democrats in the Senate did. Rockefeller made the following statement on October 10, 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years… The global community — in the form of the United Nations — has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late… Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail."
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
BO is a boy in a grown-up's game.
Once his "magic" wears off, the Dims are going to be asking themselves what were they thinking in nominating this empty suit for in the first place.