Kerry said last night he voted for NAFTA...

[Robb]

...but that there were all these sidebar provisions that made it OK. Then he said that the Bush administration* ignored the intent of the act, or something like that, because they implemented it in a way different than the spirit of the thing.

Bearing in mind how little I understand NAFTA, could someone in the Kerry camp (or really anyone who "gets it") explain? How could a politician with decades of experience vote for something that had language in it that would allow the Republicans to implement it the way he had to know they would want to?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Same old boring Kerry rhetoric...

"Even though my voting record is pure dog crap- it's only dog crap cuz of Bush"

give me a break. why not save ourselves the embarrassment and vote for someone who isn't a total idiot?

[snoochie]

2. This is not complicated at all

NAFTA was written up with the input of hundreds of representatives from manufacturers and industry.

There were seven representatives from labor groups. Seven.

Kerry is not stupid. The only alternative is complicity.

If he thought these 'sidebar provisions' were so allfired important and critical, why is he only bringing them up now?

We've been suffering for years. Why wait until the eleventh hour to make his case for how he'll 'fix' this problem?

[doc03]

17. NAFTA was broke long before Bush

Clinton passed NAFTA with mostly Republican votes:
Senate vote: for 34R against 10R
for 27D against 28D
House vote: for 132R against 43R
for 102D against 156D
1 Independant against

[snoochie]

22. Agreed

People who wonder why democrats have been losing so badly since clinton should revisit the wheeling and dealing clinton did to get this pro-corporate, pro-investor crap passed in the first place.

[doc03]

34. I have heard people say for the last 10 years Clinton passed NAFTA

Where I work if you criticize Bush the instant response is "Clinton gave us NAFTA". After getting that response several times, I looked up the vote on it and it turns out he got it with Republican votes. It still doesn't matter Clinton still gets the blame if it goes bad and if it's a success the Republicans can take the credit.

[snoochie]

36. Politics as a team sport makes corporate masters so happy

This is part of the problem. Nobody thinks, they just take a side and defend whatever wrong that side does.

The sad thing is I know republicans that know that republicans have done bad things, but they rationalize their support of bush the same way we rationalize our support of pro-NAFTA democrats.

Nothing will ever change as long as we let them control the system.

[jamesinca]

63. Yes but it was the Clinton administration

Don't get me wrong, I am not going after Clinton on this one. Could he have vetoed it? Could he have pushed the Dems to vote against it a little more? If the answer to those questions are yes, he let it happen and it happened in his administration. The thing is, Clinton is man enough to handle the critcism and not blame it on Bush sr. He is also responsible enough to admit an error of this sort and not blame it on the previous administration, unlike Bush jr.

As far as the rest of your post, if it goes well Clinton passed it and if it goes bad, the repugs voted for it.

[snoochie]

66. He liked it. Didn't want to veto it. 'Bribed' democrats to vote for it.

So...

[jamesinca]

76. Well that settles it

Clinton did it and Clinton should be given credit for it. Since the answer to the two questions were yes, the repugs are justified in saying that Clinton gave us NAFTA.

[doc03]

77. Bush 1 couldn't get it passed

because he couldn't enough Democratic support. NAFTA would have probably never been passed in a Republican administration. Clinton
pushed it, I remember he even paraded out Ford, Bush 1 and I think Carter and Reagan in support of it.

[Jackpine Radical]

94. Yes. I remember this.

" he even paraded out Ford, Bush 1 and I think Carter and Reagan in support of it."

Actually, I'm not sure about Reagan, but he got Ford and Carter to come out for it for sure.

[ArkDem]

75. Clinton lead the effort to get NAFTA passed. He was calling

on democrats to vote for it! How quickly we forget.

[jmoss]

107. everyone PLEASE consider EDWARDS!!

.....don't wait until it's too late to realize how we're better off (even if you actively supported another candidate) with JRE as Presidential candidate than with J.Kerry!!! This kind of crap is going to flow continuosly throughout November--

Imagine Edwards in a debate against GW, versus Kerry in one!

Kerry will get bombshelled by the kind of rhetoric that this thread is chastizing!!

[BayCityProgressive]

3. I dont

know much about it either but...compromise happens with all bills passed...it's called bipartisanship. Unless the Dems have huge house and senate majorities they will need to work with republicans.

[spooky3]

4. Wasn't NAFTA passed during the first Clinton term?

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N47/nafta.47w.html

[snoochie]

9. Yes

started under bush, finalized under clinton. Clinton also gave us the WTO.

Bipartisan corporate theivery.

Ain't it grand? ABB! :puke:

[diamondsoul]

95. And people in my "epiphany"

thread wonder why I hated Clinton!:eyes:

[Robb]

10. That would make all the difference

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[Adelante]

56. That's a wonderful sig pic

Been meaning to tell you. :)

[Robb]

61. Why, thanks!

I figure since I can't in good conscience register them to vote, I might as well use my team for something! ;)

[IrateCitizen]

16. NAFTA was passed in 1993, with Clinton's full support

In one of the fair trade groups I work with, the woman who heads it up told me about some reporting that the Christian Science Monitor did while Clinton was lobbying Congress for passage of NAFTA. It seems that CSM assigned reporters to follow the Clinton staffers around and document all of the deals that they were promising Democratic Congressional members in exchange for a YES vote on NAFTA. It was quite the shameless spectacle.

And here we are, 11 years later, and the problems with NAFTA are solely due to Bush? Sorry, but you can't put lipstick on that pig and expect me to kiss it.

Kerry is completely talking out of his ass on this one. And this is the one issue, probably above all others (including IWR), that really chafes me about him. It just floors me that he can be so damned disingenuous and/or disconnected from reality on it.

[democratreformed]

29. Can anyone explain why it took seven years (or more) for this to become

a big thing? Why didn't we start losing jobs right after its passage? Why the long delay in its negative effects? It's just something I don't fully understand (actually I understand very little, to be honest).

[Armstead]

35. Because these things don't fail overnight

The effects of "free trade" as it has been designed did not kick in immediately because they are the cumulative results of actions by business. It takes time to dismantle a US factory and move its operations and jobs overseas.

But any idiot using common sense should have seen it was coming when these agreements were passed. It's simple logic. But the "wise men" who inflicted on us were either duped or were corrupt. No otehr answer possible.

Just like the Iraq War. The clearest intuitive answer of early critics turned out to be the correct one.

[doc03]

38. You should have been in the steel industry the last several years

We sure knew about NAFTA and the WTO.

[democratreformed]

45. Our business relies greatly on steel.

Actually, steel is the bulk of the raw materials used in our industry. That world has gone nuts.

[IrateCitizen]

40. There was no "long delay" in its negative effects...

It's negative effects have been cumulative over time -- it has just begun to reach a critical point where the politicians are no longer able to sing the platitudes of "free trade" while the reality has been declining wages and living standards throughout much of the world.

While there are certainly positive aspects to reducing trade barriers, trade as it has been practiced under NAFTA and WTO has actually been more about imposing barriers than removing them. In effect, the drive for "free trade" has been more about furthering the effects of "corporate citizenship" while reducing the power of real citizens in countries around the world.

If Western governments (US, Canada, EU, etc.) were truly interested in empowering the economies of developing nations through increased trade, that would be one thing. But instead, they are using these agreements and institutions as vehicles for furthering the long, sordid history of colonialism -- just with a new twist. When you tie together the opening of third world markets while keeping first world markets closed, with the onerous debt through the IMF and the US military "footprint" throughout the world allowing immediate projection of force anywhere on earth -- you start to come up with a pretty ugly picture.

Clinton's pushing of NAFTA, with its many flaws (chief among them was the investor-state provision under Chapter 11 of the agreement -- a good one to look into if you're not familiar with it) was a major betrayal to workers in all three countries covered under the agreement. And his refusal to acknowledge these glaring problems (along with many who voted for it) is just twisting the knife in a little bit deeper, IMHO.

[doc03]

50. WTO/NAFTA and steel

If anyone followed the problems in the steel industry, we have been forced to be more efficient and eliminate the over capacity in our industry. Meanwhile the World Bank and American companies have been adding production capacity to overseas plants. Well you will probably be hearing people complain about rising steel prices if you haven't heard it already. Why, the USA can't produce enough steel to meat our demand and China has us by the short hairs. Everyone bitched about the tariffs even on this board, they're gone now can't blame it on that!

[democratreformed]

62. This is the way it was explained to me - tell me if you agree

First, though, I have to say that I just recently got reinvolved in the purchasing of our steel and was taken quite by surprise by this story I was told.

From my steel supplier:
Steel markets are driven by the scrap metal industry. China is currently scooping up scrap from the U.S. at alarming rates and they are willing to pay high prices. The scrap market is so volatile that people are stealing scrap metal and even vehicles to sell for scrap.

The U.S. steel industry has decided on a maximum amount that they can afford to pay for scrap. In order to get scrap for their operations, they have to compete with the higher prices China is willing to pay. They are taking the price they must pay to keep needed scrap out of the hands of China, subtracting their agreed-upon maximum, and tacking the extra on as a first-ever-in-history surcharge.

This will not end until A) the Olympics are over or B) we get a new president (his words).

A couple of years ago, I was paying 18 cents a pound for 3/16 plate. I had a quote to do last Friday and thought I would double check that particular price to see if it went along with the 35 cent a pound average he was telling me. Last Friday, the same 3/16 plate was 30 cents a pound.

I am aggravated at our purchasing person here for not letting the rest of know what was going on. He got sick. That's the only reason that the rest of us now know that we need to change the way we are quoting. If he hadn't gotten sick and I hadn't had to get back involved in the purchasing, there's no telling what damage we would be doing to ourselves.

[doc03]

71. From what I understand that's basically it.

The USSR and the USA a few years ago were the number 1 and number 2 steel producers in the world. Now our capacity is something like 100
million tons per year and we use far more than that. I read recently that China's capacity is approaching 300 million tons per year. Therefore that's why there is such a demand for scrap, think about it, they don't have that many scrap cars or rust belt factories to melt down.
Meanwhile my employer is building a new electric arc furnace that
was going to be the saviour of the company. Guess what the purpose of it is to melt down scrap rather than making steel from raw materials. Thank God for Senator Byrd and the Byrd Bill or we would be on the unemployment lines now.

[goobergunch]

55. November 17/20 1993

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=1993&rollnumber=575
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

[Monte Carlo]

5. It's the power of the bully pulpit.

Interpretation and enforcement means the world in law. With someone like Kerry in the Presidency, with the power of the nation's chief executive, could use the economic power of the United States as a huge bargaining chip to bring about reform.

NAFTA has its glaring faults, to be sure, but it can be changed.

[Paulie]

8. It can be changed by throwing it right in the GARBAGE

Where it BELONGS!

[Monte Carlo]

20. You can't reverse time.

Globalization is here to stay, and we wasting energy by resisting it. We can only adapt for the future.

[snoochie]

23. Don't be silly - nobody is saying we should turn back time

We're saying that anti-worker, pro-investor, anti-environment, pro-corprate trade agreements must go.

[Monte Carlo]

27. They're not going anywhere.

Business interests are very powerful, and there's nothing you or I or anybody else can do to halt it entirely. That's the reality. But there is nothing that prevents existing treaties from being reformed.

[snoochie]

39. I beg to differ

Kucinich is prepared to fight those powerful interests. He's done it before, and he's the only one I trust to do it from the Oval Office.

There IS most certainly something that stops these treaties from being reformed to better meet the needs of working families, and that's the WTO.


Has anyone been listening to Kucinich?

Are you all familiar with the tribunals in the WTO?


Why do I even bother?

[Monte Carlo]

47. It's not a submission, it's a realization.

The WTO will not stand without the support of the United States. We don't need the key, we'll break it.

I sympathize with Kucinich, but he's not going to win the Presidency. The country isn't prepared for someone like him - that's the very strong impression that I get.

[snoochie]

54. If the democratic leadership is kowtowing to corporate masters now

what makes you think anything will change?

Sympathize all you like. The opportunity for change is in our hands now. Take it or don't.

[Monte Carlo]

59. Kucinich will not change anything more than anyone else.

Kucinich talks the talk, but I have zero confidence that he'd be able to achieve what he says he would if some miracle whisks him into the Presidency. He would be marginalized and made impotent.

[snoochie]

64. And your reason for that belief is?

He's already shown he has the balls to do the right thing (MUNY Light).

He's already shown he has the balls to do the unpopular thing (lawsuits against bush to stop the war, to stop bush from pulling out of treaties). In fact, it was the lawsuit against bush which he lost, in which he tried to prevent bush from pulling out of a treaty, which should serve as proof that he most certainly CAN pull out of the WTO and NAFTA.

He's got legal precedent to do so already. I don't know who you think could stop him, but whomever it is, you're mistaken.

[library_max]

73. Globalization doesn't need NAFTA.

NAFTA is just a symbol. Corporations are moving all kinds of operations overseas to all parts of the world, including places where no NAFTA-like agreement exists. You could repeal NAFTA tomorrow and it wouldn't change much of anything, except maybe that some jobs in Latin America would move to Southeast Asia.

What's needed is labor-sensitive and environmental-sensitive laws and regulations to take the place of NAFTA and other such agreements. Clinton wanted to end the anarchy and establish some minimum standards. I think we can agree that they're altogether too damned minimum and that corporations have much too much power under the present agreements. Clinton used the factions that were available and willing to get the job done. Labor was saying NO NO NO instead of How can we do this thing right? I suspect they wouldn't make that mistake twice.

Regarding globalization and trade, we as a nation have three choices - lead, follow, or get out of the way. If we lead, we're going to have to produce NAFTA-like agreements, because we can't just make globalization stop. If we follow, who are we going to follow that's doing so much better than we are at protecting workers and the environment? And if we get out of the way (unilateral protectionism/isolationism), we will in the long run end up like Meiji Japan, backwards and weak and waiting for the gunboats to open our ports by force.

[snoochie]

79. NAFTA is more than a symbol

What's needed is bilateral trade. We are the world's biggest consumer. We have the power.

Unfortunately, our leaders are not interested in standing with workers to force the multinationals' hand in the game. They would rather take the money and stand with the multinationals.

We don't have to have one-size-fits-all investor protection agreements.

[library_max]

80. Bilateral agreements with whom?

Let's pretend for a moment that money didn't run American politics and that it won't continue to run American politics no matter what we do unless and until Buckley v. Valeo is overturned.

What significant trading partners are so pure and free from corporate influence that they would sign on for what corporations are bound to see as outright tyranny and confiscation of their profits? How are we legally going to force corporations to abide by these agreements? They don't have to continue to be based in the U.S. if it is no longer profitable for them to do so. Already many base elsewhere for tax reasons.

It isn't going to happen, because money DOES run American politics. But if it did, corporations could just leave us high and dry altogether and deal with friendlier nations. You say we're too big a market? China and India are much bigger markets. Would you like multinational corporations to start treating the U.S. like they treat China and India?

We don't have the power to force anybody's hand. Corporations have too many other options. Any change will have to be incremental and acceptable to all parties at the table, especially the other nations involved.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snoochie]

12. Why are you so sure it can be changed to benefit workers?

It's been around for a decade... what's holding them back?

[Monte Carlo]

18. Without the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution would be very incomplete.

Without the Bill of Rights, there is very little that seperates us from a total authoritarian and exploitative government. Reforming it has and will take time, but I guarantee you it will be a shorter time than to scrap NAFTA and start from scratch.

[snoochie]

25. What do the Bill of Rights and Constitution have to do with

Investor Protection Agreements?

[Monte Carlo]

32. It's an analogy.

A few key rights outlined in these international trade agreeements could make a world of difference. There is a lot of power and meaning contained in the words "Congress shall make no law abridging...".

[snoochie]

41. There's more power in the hands of the WTO tribunals

and if you think they're going to allow anyone to harm their corporate masters' bottom lines, well, I got a bridge to sell ya.

[Monte Carlo]

51. They're not invincible.

They're not going to lie down either, but if history is any indication, a little unionization of the people can go a long way.

[snoochie]

58. They have to approve any changes made to NAFTA

Kucinich is not lying when he says we must get out of the WTO and NAFTA if we want to make any progress.

The tribunals at the WTO are headed by people who are hand-picked by corporate interests. You do the math.

These FTAs are designed to put multinational corprations above the law.

[Monte Carlo]

60. Then it sounds pretty hopeless.

Because there is no way NAFTA is ever getting repealed.

[snoochie]

67. Not unless we nominate Kucinich

You're right. We're doomed to corporate rule if any of the corporate approved candidates or bush is elected.

Our only hope? Vote Kucinich. SHOW our leadership we're not fools. Show them we are concerned and the only way to show them that is with our votes.

[corporatewhore]

26. can i remind you what sharpton said last night

people in america justified slavery for economic reasons people like jefferson slavery should end...eventually and we are doingthe same thing with nafta/wto etc IMHO it was a 18th century cop out not suitable for the 21st

[Monte Carlo]

30. Yeah, well, it happened, didn't it.

Lots of people through history have tried to deny or ignore economic and market forces, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Justifying it or condeming it is a futile exercise; it's FUBAR, but we have to adapt to it anyway.

[Fovea]

37. This is not about justifying or condemning free trade at the core

It is about regulating and managing it to accomplish actual goals that better the world as well as producing wealth. The world is not well served by a ruling Uber Class of global capitalists, who put all other goals behind that of profit.

We don't have to adapt to it anyway. The world is ours to change.
But it is a lot easier to change when you are fighting for the wellbeing of the many, instead of the few.

[Monte Carlo]

44. We're not going to lie down and take it.

Please, do not take what I say as a submission to the inequality. Free trade is a fundamentally good idea that has been implemented horribly. What I see here is too many people willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[IrateCitizen]

48. Free trade is a completely utopian idea

Free trade exists well on paper -- just like the "invisible hand" envisioned by Adam Smith wipes away all inequities in the "free market."

The problem is, the real world doesn't work that way. There will never be "free" trade in the real world. There will, instead, be either corporate-managed trade or trade managed by citizens through their respective governments.

Right now, what we're moving rapidly toward is complete corporate-managed trade -- with little or no rights of citizenship to any actual persons, only corporations. But no matter what direction we move toward, there will always be some kind of regulation. This, in essence, means that it will not be "free" trade.

[Fovea]

33. Only if we left the WTO.

Which would be fine by me.

No, while the FTAs started with a series of benign assumptions, globalism as an expression of laissez faire capitalism is a rotten class war, a race to the bottom in income for the many that will crash the world economy like a massive ponzi scheme.

America (and much of the world) is paradoxically heading toward command economies when this massive international fraud fails.

It is not there to promote world prosperity anymore than the war in Iraq was about freeing the Iraqi people. It is the legal structure within which the current elites institutionalize their regional hegemony over resources, both natural and human.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. He voted for it under Clinton.

It was crap then, too.

Has he ever been wrong about anything?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Kerry voted for NAFTA, so I'll vote for somebody else

:eyes:

[AP]

11. Kerry sits on the two most powerful committees in the senate, and he's

probably got just about the most seniority on those committees, being a four term senator (and, unlike with the presidency, experience actually gets you something on senate committees). He must be just behind Baucus and Hollings, guaranteed to be the next ranking Dem (or chairman if Edwards wins). Those committees are Commerce and Finance. Every business in America is regulated by one of those two committees.

I have no doubt that corporations which lobby him due to his activities on Commerce and Finance were the entities he had in mind when he made those votes.

[onebigbadwulf]

13. It's not JUST about Nafta...

It's the running theme that every republican disaster (except medicare) has a Kerry "AYE" behind it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I recomend that all of yuo who head this

go and read the actual accord

I know what side provisions Kerry is talking about, the same provisions that were never enforced

The best known one is to allow Mexican truckers to drive on American roads after the fleet was to be replaced and meet safety standards...

This was never done.

What other side provisions were there?

Let me count them from memory

Creation of the equivalent of the EPA, with funding and personnel to ENFORCE environmental laws, never done. Well the agency was created but it lacks funding or even close to adequate personnel, last time I checked they had something like 300 inspectors for the whole country.

Creation of a Federal equivalent to OSHA, to enforce labor safety laws, you know things like masks at factories.. never done...

I could go on.

When Kerry says there were side provisions, there weere...so before you say this is old Kerry rethoric go and read the damn accord and the side accords... the side provisions are the ones that were not implemented and the ones that would have made things better ... since they included a significant pro rated pay raise that was to take oh ten years.

[IrateCitizen]

24. The "side agreements" have no real teeth

That's the problem with them. The sidebar agreements weren't enforced under Clinton, and they're predictably not being enforced under Bush.

Being a person who has been active in the "fair trade" movement, I can tell you that this is one of our biggest gripes. Commericial concerns are all through these damned agreements and bills -- hell, they're practically written by corporate interests! But when it comes to labor and the environmental concerns, it's suddenly only acceptable to form "sidebar agreements".

The end result is, inevitably, that the commericial interests represented through the primary agreement get full priority -- and the sidebar agreements are forgotten. Of course, this is all understandable when you view these trade agreements through the proper lens -- that they are, in reality, an attempt to limit citizenship to CORPORATE citizenship. Actual people are to have no rights under these agreements, rights are something that is reserved only for corporations.

Although Kerry should be lauded for his attempt to get an amendment into the fast-track bill addressing environmental and labor concerns, after his amendment was defeated he STILL voted for fast track. That action says to me of his thought process on the matter, "Well, I tried... but since it didn't work out, I still have to support those commercial interests anyway." It tells me that commericial interests are STILL his #1 consideration -- and while labor and environment enter his conscience, they're tied for a distant #2.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

46. Kerry was on of the people that made sure the side agreement had no teeth

The side provisions were *supposed* to be in the agreements themselves, but "liberals" like Clinton, Kerry, and Dean made SURE that they were in a separate document with little enforcement. That was their grand compromise with the Republicans which wanted none.

Listening to them spin it now is laughable.

[Atlant]

65. I'm not aware that Dean ever actually voted on NAFTA.

I take your point, but I don't think you'll ever find Dean
having been a Sentaor voting for NAFTA or a President
signing it. And now, he's firmly in favor of enforcing
all those "sidebar" agreements (where the non-enforcement
is currently letting corporations get away with murder)
and more.

Atlant

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

72. no, Dean was a "state's ambassador" for NAFTA and as Chair of the ...

Governor's Association was included in the political negotiations, obviously he didn't vote in the Senate. He wasn't just some random governor who said something nice about NAFTA on TV, he lobbyed the Governor's Assocation on behalf of it.

I'll take his change of heart at face value, but his record is pretty clear.

[rhite5]

28. So What? Side Provisions are just side provisions

only implemented when the people who wrote them are in power.(maybe)

They provide handy bits to hide behind when a candidate tries to defend a very bad vote.

I am seeing just too much of this crap in Kerry's excuses.

[corporatewhore]

15. check this out from a common dreams peice has to stay

"Just last year, the Massachusetts senator tried to position himself as the leading Senate proponent of measures designed to preserve the ability of American states to protect workers, farmers, the environment and consumers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement the Bush administration is crafting in closed-door negotiations with other countries in the western hemisphere. While Kerry sounded like a good player, he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreement. " http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0930-09.htm

[hedda_foil]

57. Wow! This really stuck out for me.

From corporatewhore's post above:

he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreement

And now he's saying he's against FTAA. Hmmm.

[gottaB]

74. The Kerry Amendment

The Kerry Amendment to the FTAA got shot down, but it would have been a positive step towards fairer trade relations.

Who knows why he voted to support fast-track even though he knew it was flawed? That vote, however, doesn't logically negate the fact that he thought the FTAA was flawed. Nor does it indicate that were he president, he wouldn't propose better trade agreements.

A few links about the Kerry Amendment

• one
  
• two
  
• three
  
• four
  

[IrateCitizen]

78. I'll tell you what his vote for fast-track says to me

It says that, while at least labor and the environment register on his conscience, they still lag significantly behind commericial interests.

I find it quite puzzling that he can say that he is against FTAA in its current form, that he is against CAFTA -- but yet he voted for a fast-track provision whose sole purpose in existing was to facilitate the ramming of FTAA down the collective throats of the citizenry of the Western Hemisphere.

Sorry, but he would have to do a helluva lot of explaining of his thought processes on this to gain any real trust from me on the issue. I'd say it's pretty much the same for millions of American workers as well.

[kalian]

19. I really don't understand Kerry's voting record....

dubious at best. Its definitely questionable IMHO.
I don't trust him...sorry...

[rucky]

21. Even in its vagueness, the response is inaccurate.

1) voted on under Clinton
2) what has * done differently? there's so much to blame * for, but in this case he's following the Clinton policy faithfully. Why?

3) Because NAFTA can't be amended. the WTO won't allow it. Kerry knew this coming into his vote. So all this quibbling w/ Bush over provisions is utter BS. So is any talk of reforming it.

Using the same arguement he did for IWR? I'll buy it once, but shame on me if I fall for the Kerry excuse every time.

[rhite5]

49. You said it, Rucky!

Enough with the excuses!

[maxanne]

83. he's used the same excuses

to defend his vote on No Child Left Behind. It needs some tweaking now, he says. It stands as it was written, when he voted for it. The post vote snivel does not impress me.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/education.html

[IrateCitizen]

88. In all fairness re: NCLB

People here seem to forget that Ted Kennedy helped to co-author this bill, along with the Bush WH. Kennedy's line of thought (and it wasn't a bad one, IMHO) was to go along with increased testing requirements if doing so could help get more funding for other educational initiatives.

Not that I'm a big fan of the emphasis on standardized testing, but the real problem came when the Bush Administration just decided not to fund it to the point that they increased the Dept. of Ed budget by LESS money than it would cost to implement the new "accountability standards".

While I think that the way the NCLB has played out is an absolute travesty, I'm not about to crucify any Democrat who voted for it in hopes of the good that was supposed to come out of it.

[library_max]

91. That's very fair and very true.

And exactly the same logic applies to the IWR and PATRIOT ACT votes.

[IrateCitizen]

97. It most certainly does NOT apply to IWR and PATRIOT Act

There WAS no "upside" to the IWR vote. Those who voted for the resolution were either:
a) Duped by the administration's misinformation
b) Endorsing the exercise of US military power against a nation that was not a threat to the US nor its neighbors

With the USA PATRIOT Act, the overwhelming majority of people in the House and Senate rushed to push this through without even reading the damned thing. While I would personally like to hold elected officials to a higher standard, I can understand their actions in this context. However, those who fail to speak out against it clearly and convincingly NOW do not gain my confidence.

NCLB was a bill that the Administration just chose not to fund. How you can equate NCLB with these other two is a complete stretch, and it just falls short of any kind of logic.

[library_max]

98. Of course there was an upside to the IWR.

You're forgetting that at the time, Bush was threatening to bypass both Congress and the UN completely and make war on Iraq without anybody's by-your-leave. The IWR put him through the process. It didn't do any good, as it turns out, because he was so willing to lie and ignore the UN's response, but there was a potential upside. Just like NCLB, it didn't work out as planned.

As for the PATRIOT ACT, Kerry does speak out against it.

[IrateCitizen]

99. No, I'm quite aware of what Bush's intentions were back then

I'm also aware, having read the language of the IWR, that it plainly spelled out many of the same falsehoods that were perpetuated by the Bush Administration in their rush to war -- referring to Iraq as an "immediate threat", making reference to their having and willingness to use WMD's, and so on. Additionally, I'm aware that there was nothing in the resolution that required Bush to come back to Congress prior to using military force -- that all he had to do was notify Congress that he was doing so.

The only way that the same argument could be used with regards to NCLB is if there was a specific provision included that stated that the President was free to not fund the initiatives if he chose not to. Last I heard, there was no such provision.

And the last time I checked, this side discussion wasn't about Kerry. It was about my sticking up for those who voted for NCLB and your attempts to equate that with IWR and USA PATRIOT. I have no idea why you would inject Kerry into this discussion. :shrug:

[library_max]

100. Check the side discussion again.

Follow the thread. Maxanne criticized Kerry (yes, Kerry) for his NCLB vote and you defended it. I pointed out that the same logic you used to defend the NCLB vote also covers IWR and PATRIOT ACT - namely that they seemed right at the time and were later corrupted away from the original intent of the legislators. That the specific details aren't the same doesn't change the basic point.

[IrateCitizen]

101. Whatever. You'll never convince me of this strained association

You can continue to try, but I see it as strained, at best -- an outright mischaracterization, at worst.

I was not defending Kerry's vote on NCLB -- I was pointing out the fallacy of general criticism on NCLB. In talking about NCLB, at no time did I mention the name "Kerry".

Semantics, semantics.

[library_max]

103. The whole thread, including the subthread, was about Kerry.

And the same principle applies to all three votes.

But hey, it was your message. Sorry if I read more into it than was there. And I apologize for calling you "fair."

Last word's yours. Go for it.

[IrateCitizen]

104. Hey now, no reason to get all snippy

You're right that the thread was about Kerry. My mistake, apparently, was to try and take the side discussion away from being about Kerry.

You don't have to apologize for calling me "fair". When I look at the three votes you are talking about here, I weigh each of them based on their merits. Then, when I look at the way that people voted on them, I apply the same principles across the board. But while people's votes within each separate bill may be able to be evaluated on common criteria, those criteria do not necessarily extend from one bill/debate to another.

As for the last word, I didn't realize that this was all about upstaging the other person. If you have a problem with disagreement, perhaps this isn't the place to be. I simply said that I see the three votes you mentioned as being in completely different contexts from one another -- and therefore, evaluated according to different criteria -- and that there really isn't anything you can bring up to convince me otherwise.

I didn't realize that an unbridgeable difference of opinion on a specific topic was perceived as a personal affront on this site. I regret that you perceived it as such, because that was not at all my intent.

[corporatewhore]

31. We should pander to texas gop on trade and nuke nafta/wto

;)

[Gin]

42. NAFTA will level the playing field..the American worker will be equal to

the workers in the 3rd world...eventually it may start an upward climb..(or not).

Money is the god of this country and all who worship at it's feet will perpetuate these policies until we cannot afford to purchase goods even at walmart...then and only then..will things change.

Maybe the USA Inc. needs to be bankrupted to fix it.

[IrateCitizen]

53. NAFTA has actually pushed Mexican wages DOWN

It's hard to believe, but it's true.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9400
Mexican workers have not obtained the promised higher wages or better standards of living under NAFTA. About 25 percent of the country's 40 million workers make the minimum wage of $4 a day; half of the workforce makes less than $8 a day. These wages are estimated to have lost 50 percent of its purchasing power over the NAFTA decade meaning, according to Mexican government estimates, the income of over half of the population does not cover the basics of food, clothing, housing, health care, public transportation and education.


Shall I tell you of the "race to the bottom" now?

[snoochie]

43. It's not pandering if you mean it

We should recognize a real winning issue when we see it and capitalize on it.

Vote for jobs for a strong American economy - vote Kucinich!

[corporatewhore]

96. exactly

[w4rma]

52. transcript

...
GILBERT: Senator Kerry, a lot of people here blame trade policy for those job losses. And you voted for all of these -- a lot of these trade deals, NAFTA with Mexico and permanent trade relations with China.

Given all of the jobs that have fled to China and Mexico, would you vote the same way today?

KERRY: Let me make it very clear that in those trade agreements, we passed side-bar provisions, side agreements in NAFTA on labor and environment, central agreements in the China trade agreement on surge -- if there's a surge of imports, or if there's a dumping that takes place, we have things that we can do.

This administration refuses to do them, number one.

Number two, there's been a dramatic shift in the world and what has happened to jobs over the course of the last few years. Perhaps three or four years ago, I began talking about how it is critical that in any trade agreement, we now need to negotiate labor and trade, labor and environment standards.

I will order a 120-day review of all of our trade agreements. We're going to see what's working, what isn't. I will not sign a trade agreement like the Central American Free Trade Agreement or the Free Trade of Americas Act that does not now embrace enforceable labor and environment standards. And we need to be creating more jobs here in the United States of America.

I have a $50 billion package that I'll make available for manufacturing incentives and for relief for the states in order to help create the jobs we need in America, as well as a $4,000 tuition tax credit for kids to be able to go to college.

We're going to refocus on science and technology on the United States. We're going to do the stem cell research and all of the other kinds of commitments to science that will advance the creation of jobs here at home.

This president thinks it's enough just to raise the stock market I don't.

I think a president needs to put America back to work, and that's what I intend to do.

GILBERT: But no regrets about those votes?

KERRY: I regret the way that they haven't been enforced, sure. I think...

GILBERT: Senator Edwards, let me just turn to you first. I mean, you said the other day that there are obvious differences between you and Senator Kerry on this issue.

What are they?

EDWARDS: This is one. This is -- the one you just asked about is an obvious example.

You know, Senator Kerry is entitled, as is Governor Dean, to support free trade, as they always have. The problem is there what we see happening, and it's NAFTA, which I opposed, plus a whole series of other trade agreements, have been devastating here in Wisconsin. Nobody has to tell me what the effect is of some of these bad trade agreements.

EDWARDS: I have seen it myself.

My father worked in a mill. I saw what happened when the mill in my home town closed. I saw the looks on the faces of the men and women who had worked there, many of them for decades, and had nowhere to go.

You mentioned Tower Automotive just a minute ago. I went to Tower Automotive, met with some of the employees who were about to be laid off. That vacant look, "What do I do now? I've worked hard and been responsible for decades to raise my family, done what I was supposed to. What do I do now? " It all looked very familiar to me.

And the voters of Wisconsin deserve to know this is something I will take very personally. I will stand up and fight every way I know how to protect these jobs, including the jobs that are being lost at Tower Automotive because I have lived with this my entire life and I take it very personally.

BORGER: Governor Dean, do you have something to say about what John Kerry just said -- I mean, Senator Edwards?

DEAN: No, but I have something to say about what John Edwards just said.

BORGER: John Edwards, right.

DEAN: I think the free trade agreements were justified, but the problem is we've only solved half the problem. We've globalized the rights of big corporations to do business anywhere in the world. We did not globalize human rights, labor rights and environmental rights, and we need to do that.

Now, with all due respect, I'm the only person up here who's ever balanced a budget, who's ever had the kind of agreements that we create jobs.

Here's what we need to do: One, we've got to balance the budget. People do not invest in countries that don't balance their budgets. Two, we've got to do something to help small businesses and self- employed people. Small businesses and self-employed people create 70 percent of all the new jobs in America. We do virtually nothing for them. They need help with capital. They need help with health insurance. They need help with less paperwork.

If you want jobs in America, instead of giving $3 trillion tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country, what we ought to be doing is investing in mass transit, in schools, in renewable energy, and things that create jobs now and build infrastructure so we can have more jobs later on.

BORGER: Well, Governor, let me ask you another related question. Last week, Democrats were out there criticizing the president's economic adviser who said that outsourcing was actually good for America because it keeps prices down in this country. So would you be willing to make Americans pay higher prices for goods in order to stop sending those jobs overseas?

DEAN: Yes, I've repeatedly said that. The bad news is if we do what I want to with our trade agreement, you're going to pay higher prices at Wal-Mart because their stuff is all made in China and labor costs are going to go up in China. The benefit is, though, that you're going to keep good, high-paying jobs in the United States of America and that's what this debate is all about.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44506-2004Feb15?language=printer

[revcarol]

68. Kerry wants "manufacturing incentives??!!"

NOT ALLOWED under the WTO. Cannot treat foreign coporations different from domestic ones.

Thought you took us in, didn't ya?

[w4rma]

69. Edwards and Dean are much better on this issue than Kerry, imho. (n/t)

[snoochie]

70. They're not really worried about taking us in. The pundits said Kerry

looked presidential.

What else matters? He looks presidential and he's got the 'electability' thing.

Issues? feh

[doc03]

82. He's the one the media decided to push

The news media claimed Dean was the front runner for a year, then
when it appeared he was going to loose in Iowa they started talking about his bad temper. Then they take the scream and make a big deal about it, if you see the whole tape he was laughing at the end. They cut that part out. Now I am afraid they are building Kerry up so they can drop the bomb about his affair in the main stream media.

[doc03]

81. Kerry is on both sides of everything

Let's see:
He voted for NAFTA but opposes it.
He voted for IWR but opposes it.
He was a war hero but opposed it when getting home.
He wants a strong military then votes against all the weapons systems.
He is a life long hunter but favors gun control.
He can't decide weather he had the affair or not.
He is a moderate then votes with Kennedy 95% of the time.

[revcarol]

85. I'm surprised he didn't get booed at the debate!!

Dean has come around some. Edwards against NAFTA, but somehow forgets about the WTO. Sharpton has the right idea: it's exporting slavery(I taught English in two of those maquiladoras, and the people are almost slaves.)Kucinich has been head and shoulders above the rest in addressing the whole issue AND what to do about it.

Wisconsin has lost a lot of jobs to NAFTA. Am surprised Kerry didn't get booed.(Of course, now some of those jobs that moved with NAFTA have moved again to other third world countries, so the candidates need to address the WTO thingie.)

[library_max]

93. But you're not surprised that he's winning all the primaries? /nt

[shivaji]

87. You hit the nail on the head, bro................n/t

[Algorem]

84. Golly I sure hope he doesn't get fooled a lot like that as president.

Or get the chance to.

[shivaji]

86. Repugs are salivating at TV ads where Kerry debates Kerry

George Will's column yesterday lists more than a dozen major issues on
which Kerry has flip-flopped. And I am reading articles about Rove machine
making commercials ready for the fall campaign.

Frankly the Alex Pollier thing does not worry me, it will be old news
in november, and the country has had enough of bimbo eruptions. Monica
and Linda Tripp has seen to that.

[library_max]

90. They'd do the same to Dean or anybody unless they had something better.

Take anybody's 35-year political career and you're going to find some statements that, taken out of context, look like contradictions. You're also going to find cases of people changing their minds, if they have minds to change.

[genius]

92. Dean's for NAFTA too. Kucinich and Edwards are the anti-NAFTA alternative

Consider that when you vote.

[flpoljunkie]

102. Although Edwards voted for the China trade deal in 2000.

Edward's populist campaign was born on the steps of the City Hall in Nashua, NH, on January 3rd with his "Two America's" speech.

Edward's populist rhetoric belies a number of his votes in the Senate. Besides the China trade deal vote in 2000, Edwards voted in 2001 for the bankruptcy bill, an egregious giveaway to the banks and credit card companies. Edwards also voted against increasing the renewable energy standards, to weaken the Safe Water Drinking Act, to continue factory farms (i.e., hog farms) and to limit the liability of the nuclear industry.

Consider these votes when you consider your vote for the Democratic nominee. John Kerry's lifetime record of fighting and voting for civil rights, consumer rights and the environment speaks volumes; his is not an election year conversion.

[revcarol]

105. NAFTA is just the tip of the iceberg.

Both Edwards and Kerry voted for free trade with CHINA.

Have you looked at where your WalMart goods are made? CHINA.

Admittedly they were both in Wisconsin, which has lost many jobs to NAFTA. But Edwards is not the "keep those jobs at home" guy he has been portraying.Kerry is worse, having voted for NAFTA, but they're both peas in the same corporate pod, and I think the Wisconsin voters are being deceived by Edwards.

[On the Road]

106. Well, that Was Clinton's Position

and Clinton was president then. So Kerry's vote has to be judged in that light. Of course, Clinton really didn't deliver those sidebar agreements.

As it is written, NAFTA is a terrible agreement of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations.

But free trade agreements are not by themselves all bad depending on how they're written. Most trade unions and even Noam Chomsky support some version of free trade.

[littlejoe]

108. I thought it was a reasonable and responsible reply.

Most everyone had high hopes for NAFTA. I believe no one could have envisioned the serious problems NAFTA has caused, because those who voted for it expected the provisions to be carried out and enforced.