Clintons blew it on NAFTA, and we are going to suffer even more in the future for it!

[Dems Will Win]

NAFTA is a huge reason to vote against Hillary and for Obama or Edwards. It also increased illegal immigration from Mexico dramatically by the dumping of cheap US corn and the depression of 15 million Mexicans in the corn economy.

against the wishes of Labor and many Democrats, The Clinton White House caved to big business and sold out the Middle Class and the poor. As the fight developed both David Bonior (Minority Whip) and Dick Gephardt (Minority Leader) refused to support NAFTA. So, Clinton had to turn to Republicans and wavering Democrats with arm twisting and promises of pork. Politics above principle and above the welfare of the American worker seems to have been the climate. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Long story short...with assurances that NAFTA would in fact increase jobs by 200K a year and fear-mongering to the Unions that if NAFTA didn’t pass we wouldn’t get some kind of Health Care program passed in Congress, Clinton steamrolled NAFTA into law. (You can read about the Pork later HERE. )

NAFTA was a kick in the face to organized labor and the beginning of the end for apparel and many other manufacturing and assembly jobs in America. Manufacturing was the one place where a bright energetic worker without a college education could find a secure, decent paying job...with the possibility of moving up in both pay and position. The apparel industry was particularly important to women...offering unskilled women the opportunity to work and add to the family income. Broadly speaking, these jobs went to $6 a day workers in Mexico and further South, and are now, through even more "free trade" legislation largely where workers earn $1/day. And, of course, we didn’t get Health Care legislation passed either.

Recent estimates I’ve read indicate America has lost well over four million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements were foisted upon us by our feckless elected representatives. I suspect the total number of jobs impacted is well over double that. That’s a guess. There are lots of conflicting statistics...depending on who you want to believe.

The EPI (Economic Policy Institute whose motto is "Research for Broadly Based Prosperity) has issued several reports.

In 2001 EPI said: (Any emphasis in blockquotes below is mine)

Rapidly growing foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada and Mexico has played a key role in disrupting the balance in trade relations between NAFTA's participants. The number of factories in Mexico's maquiladora zones has increased more than 79% since 1993, and employment in these plants increased 139% in this period. More than 1.3 million workers were employed in more than 3,700 maquiladora plants in 2000. The mere threat that a U.S. company could open such a plant has been used to bully workers into accepting cuts in pay, benefits, and working conditions in many U.S. factories, as shown in several recent reports.


(Maquiladora – under this program the Mexican government allows the duty-free, temporary importation of raw materials, supplies, machinery and equipment, etc. as long as the product assembled or manufactured in Mexico is exported.)

In another report titled "NAFTA at SEVEN" EPI stated:

...between 1993 and 2000, U.S. domestic exports to its NAFTA partners increased rapidly-with real growth of 147% to Mexico and 66% to Canada. These increases, however, were overshadowed by the larger growth in imports, which have gone up by 248% from Mexico and 79% from Canada. The $16.6 billion U.S. trade deficit with these countries in 1993 increased by 378%, or $62.8 billion, by 2000 (all figures in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars).

In 2003 the EPI said this about NAFTA and "free trade" agreements in general:

The result is one thing that almost everybody who studies trade now agrees upon. Whatever else they have wrought—more jobs, fewer jobs, more or less poverty—globalized trade and production coincide with greater inequality both within and between countries. The reasons for this are complex—globalization weakens unions, strengthens multinationals, and increases competition and insecurity all around—but the data are clear. Markets do not distribute wealth equitably.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/25/93813/607

If you think NAFTA was a huge mistake, RECOMMEND.

[maddiejoan]

1. Obama and Clinton--

have the same exact position on NAFTA.

What exactly is Edwards' position on NAFTA?

I've yet to see a clear answer.

[waiting for hope]

2. Here you go:

Smart Trade For American Workers

After growing up in Carolina mill towns, John Edwards understands the devastating impact trade can have on workers and communities. The current account deficit exceeded $850 billion in 2006, which is 6.5 percent of our economy. An estimated 5 million jobs have been sent offshore under President Bush, and economist Alan Blinder estimates that 30 million to 40 million jobs are potential candidates to be sent offshore in the coming decades. Even when jobs are not moved offshore, competition from cheap labor overseas holds down wages and benefits in the United States.

Be a Tough Negotiator, Unafraid to Reject Bad Deals: The American position in trade negotiations has been formulated behind closed doors with help from corporate lobbyists. Under the "fast track" procedure, Congress could not amend the resulting deals. Not surprisingly, trade deals include special privileges for American multinational corporations but not protections for worker rights. For example, while the core NAFTA agreement failed to include any labor standards, its Chapter 11 gave corporations sweeping rights to challenge national laws in secretive tribunals, putting investor profits ahead of American sovereignty and protections for health and the environment.


Insist on Benefits for Regular Families: Edwards believes that the true test of a trade deal is not its reception on Wall Street or contribution to the gross domestic product. Instead, his primary criterion for new trade deals will be simple: considering its impact on jobs, wages and prices, will it make most families better off? He rejects President Bush's use of trade agreements to encourage countries to support his foreign policy, rather than to strengthen our economy.


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.

Require Environmental Standards: Edwards supports strong environmental standards so multinational companies cannot profit by exploiting weak environmental laws and enforcement in some countries. For example, after the U.S. has capped its greenhouse gas pollution as Edwards proposes, trade policy could be used to encourage similar commitments by other nations.

Fight Currency Manipulation: Some of our trading partners intentionally manipulate their currencies to keep the price of their exports low, putting American businesses at a great disadvantage. Edwards believes that other nations like China and Japan must make meaningful progress toward ending currency manipulation. Future deals must include strong, clear language on impermissible currency practices. Edwards will also make it easier for the Department of the Treasury to act against unfair trade practices by removing the intent requirement and allowing a range of responses, such as suspending government purchases from the foreign country to taking a case directly to the WTO.

Demand a Level Playing Field for Trade: America's trade with the world has accelerated greatly in the past 15 years. Technology reduced the cost of trading goods and services, large countries like China, India and the former Soviet bloc joined world markets, and the U.S. cut its average tariff in half. In that time, imports have increased by more than 50 percent as a share of our economy and our leaders in Washington have failed to ensure that overseas markets are open and that American workers and companies can compete on fair terms.

Prosecute Violations of Trade Deals: Too often, Washington has looked the other way while other countries have broken trade laws and failed to live up to their commitments to open markets to U.S. goods. The U.S. Trade Representative is currently responsible for enforcement, but often neglects trade deals as soon as the ink dries. As a result, trade violations like subsidies are overlooked, unsafe products enter the country, intellectual property is pirated, and goods are counterfeited. Edwards will assign top prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice to the job of enforcing trade laws, including the stronger labor and environment standards he will negotiate. He will also go after illegal trade subsidies and insist that China and other countries move toward ending manipulation of their currencies, seeking WTO sanctions if necessary.


Eliminate Tax Incentives to Move Offshore: The U.S. tax code encourages multinational corporations to invest overseas by allowing them to indefinitely defer taxation on their foreign profits. A recent $90 billion "tax holiday" for multinational corporations failed to create jobs, as President Bush promised, and many of these companies laid off employees instead. The effective tax rate on foreign non-financial income is less than 5 percent, which is well below the U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent. In some cases corporations actually receive subsidies to invest overseas through a "negative tax." Edwards will eliminate the benefit of deferral in low-tax countries, ensuring that American companies' profits are taxed when earned at either the U.S. rate or by a foreign country at a comparable rate.

Revamp Trade Assistance to Help Dislocated Workers and Communities: The economic upheaval of globalization is no longer limited to certain jobs or communities. American workers today are more likely to lose their jobs, look longer for a new one, and then take a significant pay cut. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) helps only a select group of manufacturing workers and unemployment insurance (UI) fails to help most unemployed workers.


Create a New "Training Works" Initiative Tied to High-Wage Jobs:While training alone is no substitute for good trade policies, we must do more to help workers get skills and move ahead in their careers. Edwards will make an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to help workers advance by:

-Building career ladders that help low-wage workers gain skills and move up into well-paying jobs that can support their families. Edwards will support industry labor-management partnerships that work with community colleges and educators in industries like health care and manufacturing to expand opportunities for tailored, industry-specific training.

-Supporting quality on-the-job and customized training for responsible businesses that agree to hire and train previously jobless workers.

-Extending unemployment benefits to allow workers to enroll in long-term, quality training.

-Supporting unemployed workers who have promising business ideas with entrepreneur grants, mentoring, and continuing unemployment benefits through the business start-up phase.

-Investing in trained, professional career counselors, which is a proven, cost-effective approach to helping workers identify quality job and training opportunities.

Help Communities Recover from Mass Layoffs: When communities lose a major employer, there is a predictable downward spiral: retailers lose customers, home foreclosures depress property values, and falling tax receipts force cuts in public services. For too long, the federal government has stood by while plant closings devastate entire towns. And yet, which communities will struggle under new trade deals is usually predictable. Edwards will require the independent U.S. International Trade Commission to study which communities will face stiffer competition under new trade deals. When a plant closing appears imminent, Edwards will immediately deploy technical assistance and recovery specialists to work with affected employers, unions and local officials just as the government does for areas facing a military base closing. New resources will be available for shoring up the local tax base, attracting new family-sustaining jobs, and helping local businesses expand.


Strengthen the Safety Net for Workers Who Lose Their Jobs: Our unemployment insurance program has not been improved in over 70 years. Americans today are more likely to lose their jobs and less likely to receive unemployment benefits. TAA excludes millions of service workers facing trade-related competition. Edwards will help states provide UI coverage to 500,000 more workers a year, particularly low-wage and part-time workers. He will help the long-term unemployed by creating a standard 26-week extended benefit and expanding options for benefits during job training. He will also expand TAA's extended unemployment insurance and training benefit to all workers dislocated by globalization, regardless of their industry, making an estimated 600,000 workers a year eligible. Edwards' universal health care plan will ensure that workers who lose their jobs will not lose their health insurance.

~Snip~

More at: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/trade/

Hope that helps - I didn't post it all because there was a lot of it!

[maddiejoan]

4. okay.

So Clinton, Obama AND Edwards have the same position on NAFTA then.

Thanks.

[Dems Will Win]

22. I trust Obama the most of the candidates who could win

It's a good sign Obama is hitting Clinton in NAFTA, that can only lead to his rejecting the whole shooting match as things heat up.

Obama rejected Peru agreement after the labor language was weakened.

[JDPriestly]

31. What is Clinton's stance on NAFTA?

I just looked at her website and could find no reference to NAFTA or any other trade agreement. Can you find one?

[cuke]

35. Hillary has been clear about her position on NAFTA

It's the same as the other candidates, with the exception of Kucinich. She wants to amend NAFTA, not end it.

[cuke]

37. Here's an interesting link

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=us

[hayu_lol]

54. JD, Hillary was publically asked about NAFTA and she said...

that they had high hopes for the plan. That she was disappointed by the way it turned out and that it certainly had to be re=evaluated and changed where necessary.

Her answer was pretty straight-forward. It was pretty much inline with what our govt. is supposed to do when one of the plans goes awry.

[NorthCarolina]

60. Well Tell Us Then

EXACTLY what aspects of NAFTA she would "re-evaluate"? Next tell me EXACTLY how "re-evaluate" is the correct answer.

Because for me, the only truly correct, exceedingly clear, and pro-working class answer seems to be coming from Kucinich...SCRAP NAFTA ENTIRELY.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[Sean Stuart]

72. "Straight-forward?"

I wouldn't consider her answer "straight-forward" unless she identified what aspects of it concerned her and why. Did she?

[DianaForRussFeingold]

21. K&R .. I would like to see Edwards and Kucinich team up.

That's the only way to beat the system...Otherwise, we have a candidate already predetermined to win the Primary! What's that old saying? "Whoever controls the media...."

[lumpy]

81. LOL love that cartoon

v

[Can of Whoop-ass]

82. Idiot.......

.........NAFTA was George Bush Sr.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_America/CAFTA_LegacyFreeTrade,html

[waiting for hope]

83. Nice first post -

Are you calling me an idiot? Because all I did was give Reply #1 Edwards trade policy.

[Dems Will Win]

14. Obama is going to hit Clinton hard on NAFTA, and he is for restoring H1-B visas to reality

Obama Criticizes Clinton on NAFTA
By BETH FOUHY – 6 days ago

MARION, Iowa (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama sharply criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday for her past support of NAFTA, saying the former first lady had changed her mind about the trade agreement only since becoming a presidential candidate.

"I think it's important to note that Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for NAFTA for more than a decade," Obama said at a news conference with representatives of a regional United Auto Workers chapter, whose members voted last week to recommend an endorsement of the Illinois senator.

"I realize that changing your position to suit the politics of the moment might be smart campaign tactics but isn't the kind of strong, principled leadership America needs right now," Obama said.

...

The North American Free Trade Agreement was passed in 1993 with the strong support of President Clinton, and eliminated most tariffs on goods traded between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Since then, many Democrats and representatives of organized labor have roundly condemned NAFTA, arguing that it has favored the rich while moving thousands of middle-class jobs out of the United States. Edwards has called the agreement a "disaster."

When pressed at a televised debate Thursday on whether she still supported NAFTA, Clinton said the agreement had been a mistake "to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."

Obama took note of those words Sunday.

"I was pleased to hear her say that because as more than 10,000 jobless Iowans know, that's what NAFTA has been," he said.

[maddiejoan]

18. The fact remains --

Obama;s position on NAFTA is identical to Clinton's.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. So what, EXACTLY, is Clinton's position?

All I've ever heard is "it didn't turn out quite how we liked" and "problems with it need to be looked at"

and it took 10 fucking years for her to figure even THAT out.

Gimme a break.

[niceypoo]

53. Hillary wasnt president when NAFTA was signed

She didnt sign it

[bagrman]

68. jThen who is the "we" she is referring to.

[NorthCarolina]

58. Who cares what he says "now"

or what any of the other favored candidates of the conservative media say on the topic for that matter, because it's all doublespeak anyway. We already have a candidate that makes no bones or doublespeak about NAFTA and other corporate biased Trade Agreements.

Kucinich is the answer here folks. He was telling the truth about these agreements to the American public long before it became fashionable for the other candidates to even address them. Kucinich will END NAFTA period..end of story, the others promise only to "take another look" at it, or to "soften" it. Yeah, whatever...blow it out your a$$ you corporate lackey's.

If you want action, REAL ACTION, then make no mistake about it....you want Kucinich.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[Bitwit1234]

3. So repeal it...................

[saracat]

7. No big to you is it? It shouldn't have been passed in the first place!

[DaLittle Kitty]

61. NAFTA is why over 20% of voters in '92 selected Ross Perot

America must decide whether the American worker and so defined, the middle class is important enough to be preserved. Weak politicians of any stripe who bow shamelessly to the whims of "The Corporation" must be held accountable for their actions. The only reason they do it is for the $$$$...

America needs to select its leaders on the basis of character and trust in 2008, and on the basis of what aspiring leaders are proposing to do to enhance the greater good for all Americans. A wholly owned concept of the Democratic Party I've been told.

In Iowa and New Hampshire it is all about primary voters holding the candidates feet to the fire and demanding straight answers with detail, on the toughest issues. It is about also battle testing our candidates for the true test to come in the general election.

Make no mistake, the fire will be withering and only straight talk will survive the onslaught. No milquetoast there! :think:

[ulysses]

5. absolutely recommended.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Strongly recommended

[MannyGoldstein]

8. To The Contrary - They Were Successful

Anyone with any smarts at all, who actually thought about it, knew that NAFTA would be a catastrophe for the bottom 95% of Americans (by income). Even worse for that bottom 95% was Clinton's getting permanent "free" trade status for China. The claims, that $2-a-day workers would spend huge sums on American goods and services and thus increase US living standards, were simply nonsensical.

Obviously the Clintons are smart. So they knew what the results would be.

So it follows that they did it for those who they knew would benefit - the wealthiest 5% or so of Americans. And, indeed, it has been a roaring success for the Predator Class.

[Whisp]

42. so true, they did not 'blow' it... for the 1%ers, that is.

lets remember to think in terms of the 'us' and 'them' and things become much clearer. too many suppose we are all on the same side - the elites and those of us they consider useless eaters.

[Perry Logan]

51. And yet income rose at all levels when Clinton was President.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. True, But...

IIRC, for the median American worker it rose a tiny bit towards the end of his tenure - still far below what it was in the early 1970s, the last time we had an actual Democrat as President.

Productivity went way up under Clinton, and the Rich got far, far richer, while the Middle Class got some scraps, soon yanked back by Bush.

[Popol Vuh]

9. 100 % Agreed

Thanks for posting this Dems Will Win..

Kicked and Recommended.

[BenDavid]

10. So everything that has gone wrong in America is all

Bill Clintons fault? WOW! WOW! Many in here are buying into this utter bullshit coming from the right and now from some here on the left.
Bill Clinton caused the deaths of over 3000 people on 9-11
Bill Clinton caused Global Warming
Bill Clinton caused Katrina and Rita
Bill Clinton caused me to have to wear Army Values Tags around my neck
Bill Clinton caused the GOP to not renew the Voting Rights Act
Bill Clinton caused Plamegate
Bill Clinton caused Gannon-gate
Bill Clinton caused Hookergate
Bill Clinton caused gas prices to go up
Bill Clinton caused Enron
Bill Clinton caused Tyco
Bill Clinton caused the Energy Crisis of California
Bill Clinton caused vote 2000
Bill Clinton caused Joe Lieberman (that might be true lol)
Bill Clinton caused the Iraq War
Bill Clinton caused Tony Snow’s cancer

PLEEZZEEE

Bill Clinton also had nothing to do with a balanced budget, but his policies somehow caused the largest deficit in the history of world government after he left office.

Clinton - Multiple Budget Surpluses
Bush - 400,000,000,000 deficits as far as the eye can see
Clinton - The Dow TRIPLES during his administration (3800->11700)
Bush - the Dow has done nothing in 6 years
Clinton - 18 million high-tech jobs
Bush - 4 million big mac jobs
Clinton - wins wars in Bosnia and Kosovo - a grateful world thanks us
Bush - loses wars in Iraq & Afghanistan - the world hates our guts
Clinton - real incomes are up for the majority of American families
Bush - real incomes are down for the majority of American families

You think maybe if another Clinton were to be in the White House once again America would become the "light" for so many others? Damn skippy I do.

Ben David

[Deja Q]

16. Not entirely his fault, but he had contributed to some of the problems.

I dunno. In the end, we have to go on they say and how they present themselves and hope for the best.

[brentspeak]

19. The point is that Clinton screwed this nation over by signing NAFTA

[emilyg]

40. The point is he's not running.

[LeFleur1]

46. The Point Is He's Not Running

I've been waiting for someone to say this. Is Hillary going to be credited with Bill's successes,too?
Or just with the things someone believes failed?

[kenfrequed]

77. "credit due" return change?

She is being "credited" with her support for Nafta and her ongoing support for NAFTA. The fact that Bill supported Nafta is another matter entirely and seems to be thrown up by Hillary supporters as much as anyone.

[indimuse]

49. tooshay!

:headbang:

[indimuse]

50. finally..

besides...OBAMA is Unelectable. Where are Obama's records??

And why is that NOBODY talks about Edwards AND Lieberman work together on the run up to the WAR!

[kenfrequed]

76. Well

As to first list it is an absurdist argument with some lively and lovely bits of strawman thrown in.


No, Bill Clinton is not George Bush. But this thread is about NAFTA. That's it.

And the real question is whether free trade is good for long term prosperity for the majority of American workers. The fact that there was a brief bit of prosperity during Clinton has a bit more to do with a bit of progressive taxation and much needed social and infrastructure spending than anything to do with NAFTA or the WTO. It takes years for some corporations to take advantage of these new trade arrangements.

Additionally some numbers are frequently juggled when it comes to employment and income by both parties.

If you want to deal dishonestly with the issue and conflate the argument into something it isnt feel free, just don't expect to be able to do so without getting called on it.

[Deja Q]

11. If nothing else, I'd like Hillary to more than adumbrate her claim of helping the US middle class,

especially when she wants to bring in more and more H1Bs and other outside workers.

Nothing against offshoring except Americans have been hurt too much, with nothing changing to make our country a more level playing field. This is not about entitlement (an odd concept; the news articles about "Hitler's Cross", some disparaging talking of America's "comeuppance" by the people we're helping, Chinese buying out and drinking lots of wine and getting big discounts on intellectual property as a reward for all their piracy only suggests who is getting entitled over what...)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. "Adumbrate" -- wow am I impressed with your vocabulary!!!

Damn, hadn't seen that one in years.
Don't know what it means, though.

[LWolf]

12. They didn't "blow it." It was quite deliberate.

Obama is not going to get rid of NAFTA; he's no better.

[emilyg]

41. Neither will Edwards.

[LWolf]

55. You're probably right.

That's one of the excellent reasons why I consider NONE of the three acceptable.

[earth mom]

13. Oh Hell Yeah! K & R! nt

[insanity]

15. And now Lou Dobbs might run for President

NAFTA was a bad idea. It brought tons of people to work in places that manufacture goods and ship right to the US. When the Mexican economy took a dive because of inflation people saw a much better life in the United States.

My argument has always been to fix illegal immigration you have to repair the Mexican economy which means rethinking NAFTA so more people actually benefit.

[Pastiche423]

17. I absolutely recommend!

[mod mom]

20. NAFTA was a huge economic, environmental and national security blunder, imho.

[pacalo]

23. It was a COLOSSAL mistake.

NAFTA is tops on my list of concerns; well, actually it's just below my contempt for the boy king, from the moment he was given the presidency by the SCOTUS' silver platter in 2000.

[DaLittle Kitty]

67. Ask a laid off manufacturing worker what he/she thinks of NAFTA?

He/She will remember quite a bit more than, "All I remember is a bunch of charts, tee hee":eyes:

[pacalo]

73. It's the most assinine, destructive policy against our country's workers.

Let's make it easier for our corporate friends to keep more of their profits by moving manufacturing operations to third-world countries, allowing them to pay less for salaries & benefits.

Corporate greed & vast corporate layoffs began with Reagan. I know, because I was a victim living in a manufacturing-rich area where layoffs were unheard of before the Republican puppet from Hollywood moved into the White House.

[Stephanie]

24. "Politics above principle" is Hillary Clinton's motto

That explains everything.

[northzax]

26. i notice you have as your avatar

one Al Gore, who was the Clinton Administration's lead public voice on NAFTA (remember his debates with Ross Perot? remember him sitting in the Senate, prepared to cast the deciding vote on NAFTA?).

what does that explain?

[Stephanie]

33. Al Gore is not running for president.

So what is your point?

[northzax]

36. just that you combine

condemnation of NAFTA with an implied endorsement of its premier spokesman. I find it amusing. Al Gore is the reason NAFTA passed, don't forget that.

[Buzz Clik]

70. I've noticed the same thing -- many times.

Somehow, NAFTA is supposed to be Hillary's albatross, but it was a progressive (liberal) program from day one.

Anything to get traction...

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Bullshit.

It is NOT progressive - nor is it liberal, except in the 'neo-liberal' sense.

The progressives in congress fought it, which is why it passed on the strength of the republican majority and a significant number of fence-sitting democrats.

Al Gore supported it because Clinton supported it, and a unified presidency is what we are supposed to show to the world. All the protections of labor and environment that Gore insisted on wound up being ignored or stripped out.

DON'T lay this piece of crap at the feet of progressives.

[Buzz Clik]

86. Sorry, but I won't let you rewrite history.

Here's the list of Senators and their votes:

http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=15960

and the House and their votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

Granted, there are notable liberals who voted against NAFTA, but there is an equal number who voted for it.

The only thing I will grant you is that Al Gore is a political whore.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. It was NEO-liberal, which is actually "liberal Republican"

The REAL left, such as the socialist-leaning and labor Democrats, were never for it.

[Buzz Clik]

87. What the holy hell does that mean?

Christ, I love the way you people redefine the universe to fit your concept of reality.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. NEO-liberal is the Washington Monthly/DLC crowd

the ones who think that "free" trade is the cure for whatever ails you.

In the case of the Washington Monthly, they actually refer to themselves as "neo-liberals." It's not my definition. It's theirs.

[depakid]

25. K & R

Perot was right.

[Joanne98]

27. NAFTA was a HUGE mistake and they haven't even APOLOGIZED yet!

I'm supporting John Edwards because I'M NOT RICH!

[Alexander]

28. Now now, we all know Hillary shouldn't be blamed for NAFTA...

Because she probably didn't have any decision-making role while her husband was president, save where he was going to sleep at night.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. She wasn't on the team, but she was a cheerleader, and for 10 years

didn't see anything wrong with it - its passage was a point of pride for her in her first senate campaign, even though sane people had seen the problems with it for years.

Did she ever speak out against NAFTA before '06?

[philly_bob]

29. At the time, regrettably, I supported NAFTA too.

In retrospect, I regret how it's turned out with all the outsourcing and lost manufacturing jobs.

I don't know whether it turned out so badly because it was administered by greedy Neocon Republicans or whether the problem is in free trade itself.

All I'm saying is it's complicated. Remember, the opposite of globalization is protectionism. I'm not marching under the Free Trade flag anymore, but I'm not sure I want to march under the flag of Protectionism.

It's not a simple issue like torture or preemptive war or wiretapping.

[B Calm]

30. NAFTA was a huge mistake. But, give the credit for NAFTA to the republicans.

After all they were the ones who introduced it to congress. It was passed by the vast majority of republicans who were in congress at that time and signed into law by a democratic president.

[JVS]

39. Did they have a veto-proof majority? Because I keep hearing that parties in congress are not in...

control unless they get veto-proof majorities.

[JohnnyRingo]

48. I agree...People forget that NAFTA was on the desk before the Clintons unpacked

Here's some reference for future use in this argument

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2582
On December 17, 1992, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and U. S. President George Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), marking the end of a process that began on February 5, 1991

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/120196/bush.htm
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 1996
Bush NAFTA position blasted by Teamsters
FORT WORTH (AP) - The Teamsters Union has set its sights on Gov. George W. Bush over his support for lifting a moratorium on Mexican freight trucks in Texas and other southwestern states.

At issue is a provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement that allows Mexican trucks to haul goods anywhere in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.
<snip>
"The reason we're targeting George Bush on this is because he is on record as supporting NAFTA,'' Teamsters spokesman Rand Wilson told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "And we believe allowing trucks from Mexico in the United States would be a threat to highway safety.''

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm
President Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992, but sending it to the Senate for ratification would be up to the next president. Facing stiff questions from labor unions-a core Democratic Party constituency-candidate Bill Clinton declared that he would support NAFTA if it included side agreements on labor rights and the environment.

In a much-cited speech in 1992, just before the presidential election, Clinton stated that NAFTA, as negotiated, did "nothing to reaffirm our right to insist that the Mexicans follow their own labor standards, now frequently violated." After Clinton's speech, President Carlos Salinas of Mexico expressed his willingness to address concerns beyond the specific trade issues dealt with in the main accord.

And here are pix of the signing ceremony, compliments the Buxh Presidental Library:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/
Search "NAFTA" from within the site.





Barstool Republicans howl about the evils of NAFTA and Clinton, not realizing it's been a union-busting GOP dream for decades.

And so it continues

[JVS]

38. Hey people, if you want the policies of Kucinich, you gotta be willing to vote for Kucinich

And if you don't want the policies of these candidates, you have to be willing to not vote for them.

[BeHereNow]

43. Recommend with a kick and a holler-KUCINICH for prez!

The corporate elites must be stopped.
Vote Kucinich or get the "government" you deserve.
BHN

[NoGodsNoMasters]

44. A little perspective...

The Democratic party has long been far to the right of the majority of it's constituents, and has been for a VERY long time, take the war funding, health care, environmental issues, what have they really done? Al Gore's done a lot,....since he's been out of politics. You could say the same things about John Kerry, and on and on... Government and big business are coalescing in a way as it's almost difficult to see where one ends and one begins. The only real difference is democrats are generally ashamed of they're corruption and downplay it while the republicans glory in it, almost as a matter of pride. (Example: Tom Delay) The best solution for this, and many other social ills is campaign finance reform, championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and others, which would basically cut private enterprise out of campaigns, thus drastically reducing they're role in government functions. Of course NAFTA is terrible, it's clearly documented, but I seriously doubt Obama would overturn it, and Edwards, while I like him, doesn't look particularly likely, and frankly, even with his populist platform I'm not convinced even he would do it. The kind of political change that seems to be advocated by the poster is not going to happen by electing someone else, if thats' even possible. It would practically take an act of god to derail Hilary at this point, she has the money, the connections, the visibility, and the most support. Besides the fact that you're judging her by her husbands' actions. I'm sorry for some of us who are just now realizing this party is not even remotely as progressive as we'd like to believe it is. In politics the mediocre always rise to the top. I fail to see anything enlightening here except for those who were previously unaware of how bad NAFTA is.

[leftist_not_liberal]

63. There is no LEFT left.

Great Post.

[scarletwoman]

45. Huge recommend! (nt)

[niceypoo]

52. Hillary wasnt president when NAFTA was signed

Bill Clintons presidency wasnt a dual presidency.

[NorthCarolina]

59. Birds of a feather

flock together.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[EV_Ares]

56. K & R.

[Evergreen Emerald]

57. Its all Clinton's fault!

I just have to laugh.

[B Calm]

85. I know.. It makes me sick to see people in DU using right wing propaganda!

[redqueen]

62. Of course it was a huge mistake. That's why I'm for Kucinich.

He has never pretended to be confused about how this would affect people.

I don't believe those that say they'd like to "fix" NAFTA.

[spanone]

64. Hillary was not the president.....that was Bill.

[BlueJac]

65. Clinton supporters can just not get over them!

I've had enough of the same old bullshit, same old names!


Vote DK

[Romulox]

66. Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites on this issue. "Free trade" and environmentalism

don't mix.

Al Gore was the point man on the NAFTA campaign, whereby jobs are moved from a country with strong environmental protections (the US) to a country with much worse protections (Mexico.) The same is true of MFN with China, except that China has no environmental (or consumer safety,) standards whatsoever.

Al Gore was at the forefront of pushing for job obliterating and environmentally devastating "free trade" back during the Clinton administration. He triangulated himself into an ersatz eco-warrior much later.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. And even his "environmentalism" is Environmentalism Lite

Nothing about the urgent and disruptive steps that must be taken to prevent Nature from doing even more disruptive things to us.

If we really want to alleviate global climate change, we can't just do feel-good things like buying fluorescent light bulbs and putting our newspapers out on the curb and then think we're doing enough. (Not that these are bad steps, but they're not nearly enough.) We have to retrofit our society so that driving is unnecessary instead of mandatory, impose new (actually old) climate-appropriate building standards on new buildings to cut back on the need for heating or air conditioning, plant greenery wherever possible (turning parking lots into parks and rooftops into gardens), and tighten the Clean Air Act so that the fines for violating it are several orders of magnitude more expensive than installing pollution control equipment.

[notanotherday]

69. The Clintons and Obama's turned thier backs on working class Americans.

What else is there to say? Not sure about Edwards stance on it though.

[Dems Will Win]

80. Obama is coming out against NAFTA. IT's time to end it, not amend it!

[Mrspeeker]

79. HUGE MISTAKE!!!

[ecstatic]

84. Clintons and Gore and Bush. Absolutely right

This is BS I wonder if there's still a way to reverse this.

[Spirit of 34]

88. Blew it on NAFTA is an understatement

Clinton and Gore spearheaded NAFTA and a whole host of neoliberal programs.

[LostinVA]

90. "Neoliberal"?

Oh brother.

[Spirit of 34]

91. How else would you describe NAFTA, GATT, WTO

energy, finance and telecom deregulation? These were all pushed by neoliberal economists.