18 Comments

1. promoguy:

I just heard on the radio that a large per cent of manufacturing in Ohio actually is helped along the export track by NAFTA.

Let’s not tell the Ohioans or whatever they are called, untill after the Dems select their god.

Feb 28, 2008 - 11:44 am 2. David Thomson:

“How else to explain the idiotic mess the two Democratic candidates have gotten themselves into over NAFTA?”

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack “Barry” Obama are lying about free trade. Yes, they are outright lying! The consensus view even among center left Democratic Party economists like Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee is that free trade is good for the nation. However, the “elites” want to help their candidates to win elections. They therefore enter into a tacit agreement which basically says: “This anti-free trade rhetoric is all nonsense, but we will look the other way while you throw red meat to the poorly educated blue collar worker.”

Austan Goolsbee and his buddies also know that the United States is not experiencing a decline in manufacturing. Once again, they are keeping their mouths shut to help Democrats win elections. One would be outraged if they spent time with these individuals behind closed doors. Their jaw would drop to the ground after realizing how much lying is normally taken for granted.

Feb 28, 2008 - 11:50 am 3. David Thomson:

The following may make you want to puke:

“ALAS, it would appear that Barack Obama is not immune to the perennial Democratic temptation to spout a lot of globalisation-bashing nonsense during primary season. It is some consolation to know that Mr Obama’s majordomo on issues economic is the generally quite sound University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, who knows better. Just about two weeks ago, Mr Goolsbee had this exchange with interviewer Doug Krizner on the public radio programme Marketplace:

Krizner: Do you believe that current trade policies, in terms of our key trading partners, are flawed? Has free trade essentially helped to weaken the U.S. economy?

Goolsbee: Look, those are two totally different questions. I’m an economist, so you know I’m going to say “no” to the second question — open markets are good. But I don’t think it helps when you open up trade agreements and see that they’re 2,000 pages long, and they look just like the tax code — that the first three pages are about opening markets, and then the next 1,997 pages are loopholes, giveaways, special protections for individual industries. I mean, that’s getting us pretty far from the case for open markets.

Mr Goolsbee’s analysis here seems to be the opposite of Mr Obama’s: Genuine free trade agreements are short and sweet, not laden with byzantine regulations or protectionist loopholes. And indeed, a profile of Mr Goolsbee by conservative columnist George Will paints him as admirably resistant to the tendency to scapegoat globalisation for the economic woes of the working class. One hopes that between now and January 2009, he will find time to sit Mr Obama down for a refresher course.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/02/no_we_cant_trade.cfm

The Democratic Party “elites” know that the poorly educated blue collar voters aren’t likely to read the Economist. And of course, the MSM never highlights the differences between what Austan Goolsbee says within “elite” circles and what Barack Obama utters on the campaign trail.

Feb 28, 2008 - 12:00 pm 4. David Thomson:

I found this item only about a minute ago:

“Blame Canada?

“Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously,” reports Canada’s CTV:

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
Apparently the real enemy isn’t Canada, it’s cynicism.”

http://tinyurl.com/32dzle

Feb 28, 2008 - 12:22 pm 5. Charlie (Colorado):

Maybe those old Karl Rove behind it all rumors are true. How else to explain the idiotic mess the two Democratic candidates have gotten themselves into over NAFTA?

Was “they really are that dumb” not an option?

Feb 28, 2008 - 12:23 pm 6. TerryeL:

I think they are just playing to public opinion. It is too much trouble to be honest with people and educate them about what is actually going on. Just feed that old time tested isolationist and protectionist prejudice.

For instance, I am sure that more manufacturing jobs have been lost to new technology than trade, but no one is going to go back to the 60’s. I heard Howard Dean was shooting his mouth off, saying that the Republicans look like the 50’s and sound like the 60’s…meanwhile the Democrats seem to be doing some combination of Malcolm X/Martin Luther King/Camelot/Jimmy Hoffa/Jane Fonda/and big labor over there on the left. I am not sure it is the Republicans caught in a time warp

Feb 28, 2008 - 12:44 pm 7. Buddy Larsen:

Lefty opinion-makers know they must lie about every aspect of American life — that’s why it’s so important to them to brand Bush (et al) as ‘liars’. No need to be honest, is there, so long as your oppo is also crooked.

The other option, to forgo lying and lying about lying, just won’t work in their alternative American story.

Feb 28, 2008 - 1:27 pm 8. Doug S.:

Well, Romney kind to tried to pander to the unrealistic desires of the electorate in Michigan (although it was a pander not nearly as pathetic and idiotic as this one by Obama). McCain came out and did the opposite when he said that jobs from the past won’t be coming back. One is now an also-ran, the other is the nominee presumptive.

Perhaps people aren’t as stupid as all that, at least not all the time.

The longer the Dem contest stays a contest, the longer both Hilary and Obama will have to run to the left to get the nomination. And the harder it will be for either to swing back to the center for the general campaign, and the more ammo they will give McCain.

Feb 28, 2008 - 1:37 pm 9. Lem:

Obama cynically banks on people not squaring… not connecting to dots btw what he says and the realities of what makes a good economy. And he is also betting that the MSM is not going to call him on it. I say he’s doing pretty well so far.

To get away with what Obama gets away with, you would have to say that the former soviet style controlled economy is just what we need now and nobody be the wiser.

BTW – Bush’s humorous line this morning explaining Manny’s absence for the second time – “Did his grandma die again?” was hilarious.

There’s got to be some video.

Feb 28, 2008 - 2:22 pm 10. Captain Hate:

Working for votes for NAFTA was one of the few good things Slick accomplished.

Feb 28, 2008 - 3:50 pm 11. Lem:

Nafta and Welfare reform.

Feb 28, 2008 - 4:17 pm 12. Captain Hate:

Welfare reform he was forced into (didn’t he veto it twice before finally signing?) by the Repub congress. NAFTA was when the donks held sway and he did some master politicking to gain its passage. I briefly let my guard partially down and thought he might be a decent president. HA!!

Feb 28, 2008 - 4:26 pm 13. Buddy Larsen:

CH, it was the scandals that blew it.

Feb 28, 2008 - 5:47 pm 14. Gary Rosen:

“Welfare reform he was forced into”

I don’t think so. I think he realized the Dems had to get the welfare albatross off their necks even if the rest of the party didn’t.

Feb 28, 2008 - 11:25 pm 15. dclydew:

Well, as someone who grew up and is fast getting old in ‘the rust belt’, I can tell you that the Democratic candidates are saying exactly what they need to say. While NAFTA is a good thing overall, and NAfta is helping the economy overall… NAFTA seriously harmed the lifestyle and jobs of many, many individuals. Just because the economy is going Up for a state, doesn’t mean that everyone in the State is doing well.

My grandmother died Friday and I just spent most of a week in my old hometown. Thanks to NAFTA, most of that area no longer has jobs… at least that’s their perception. Let me expound on this for a second:

My Father works for a company that specializes in making kiln furniture, that is specialty ceramics that hold various other ceramics during firing, so that they bake properly. They’ve had some pretty awesome contracts including work on kiln furniture to bake ceramic tiles for NASA. However, since NAFTA, they went from the number one supplier, to bankrupt. Their competition in Mexico could sell the same pieces to American companies for the cost of raw materials at my Dad’s company. This is obviously great for the companies buying the cheaper materials. However, without that company, lots of Ohioans are out of a job.

This seems to be the case in a number of areas, and while Cleveland, Akron etc may have options for people to turn to when a factory goes under, Southeastern Ohio is not as well stocked in job options. That’s the failure with NAFTA as far as I can tell from the perception of people affected. Their jobs were replaced, which makes things better for some Americans and American Companies… but no one provided them with an option to replace their job. Companies aren’t opening new factories, plants or corporate offices in the backwoods of Ohio. Ceramics survived there because the natural resources were plentiful (Roseville and Crooksville used to be considered the Pottery Capital of the world).

So, while NAFTA benefits me, personally… in my nice job in the city… NAFTA has seriously harmed the lives of many individuals who aren’t as fortunate. That, is why Obama and Clinton are hitting it so hard here as opposed to other states. They may be blowing smoke, but its the smoke that Ohioans want to hear… as if killing NAFTA would bring the factories back.

Feb 29, 2008 - 8:55 am 16. AlanC:

Obama has been outted as a liar by Canadian TV!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/29/obamas-nafta-double-talk-confirmed-ctv/

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama?s senior economic adviser ? Austan Goolsbee ? and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

Feb 29, 2008 - 10:19 am 17. Foobarista:

The point above about manufacturing jobs being lost to technology being higher than trade is the key point.

Quick quiz: what country on Earth has lost the most manufacturing jobs in the last 15 years?

Here’s the answer.

Feb 29, 2008 - 5:27 pm 18. Captain Hate:

“I think he realized the Dems had to get the welfare albatross off their necks even if the rest of the party didn’t.”

I agree with that opinion, Gary, but it’s still a fact that he twice vetoed essentially the same reform. Without the Repub congress sending it back to him it doesn’t get signed by Slick; I call that having your hand forced.

Feb 29, 2008 - 6:06 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: