NAFTA vs Cult

[sidwill]

Which is a more meaningful criticism?

The fact that the Clintons supported NAFTA shipping away good middle class Democratic voters jobs?

Or a grade school campaign smear put forth by some sludge lords who greatly resemble the Swifties?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Yeah, the economy really sucked from 1993-2000

NOT.

If NAFTA was so bad, why didn't any of our conscience-heavy Starbucks revolutionaries try to get it killed or at least changed?

--p!

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Because the tech boom of the 90s concealed the problem with

NAFTA until after the .com bubble burst. Our economy was good, and the expectation was that NAFTA would expand Mexico's economy - by the end of the decade the truth was known.

I had reservations about NAFTA, but since is was supported by a Democratic president that I liked I thought maybe I was wrong. Turns out, I wasn't.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. That's what Bush tells us

The Left was up Clinton's ass before he introduced that legislation -- which I also opposed. But the 90s were a prosperous time anyway. 20 million jobs. The first reduction in poverty since 1969. Increased levels of savings. Etc.

To repeat myself, why didn't anyone oppose or try to change NAFTA? Why doesn't it do it today? Again, the Left is better at preening than at taking the initiative.

In order to maintain the anti-Clinton hate on both sides of the political spectrum, massive revisionism is necessary. For example, Ralph Nader and Alexander Cockburn telling us that we had been "anesthetized by prosperity". George Bush saying that he inherited a "depression".

Nonsense. Bill Clinton was an excellent president. Nobody believes the revisionism, and it drives the pundits from each political side crazy.

--p!

[Armstead]

10. Um, a lot of Democrats tried to fight Clinton on NAFTA and China

Dick Gephardt, for example.

A lot of the other Democrats who tried were branded as stupid isolationists "on the far left fringe" who were against international trade by Clinton, the DLC and the Corporate Media.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. That is what I'm saying. The 90s were prosperous DESPITE

NAFTA, not because of it. It was the tech bubble. When the decade started, most PCs were 8088 double floppys. When it ended we had the internet and 4gig harddrives. That was the cause of the 90s prosperity, not the Republican free trade theories.

But Bill, our Democratic president, said NAFTA would make things better, and things DID get better, so it was difficult to argue against UNTIL the tech bubble burst and suddenly all those computer jobs went overseas BECAUSE of NAFTA and free trade.

The DLC, by adopting the republican free trade and deregulation (telecom bill) fucked us. And now, we're supposed to think their candidate won't do it again? And this time, without the protection of sane bankruptcy laws?

Unless you can come up with a green tech boom to match the computer tech boom of the 90s, there's no reason to think that another DLC presidency will do us any good whatsoever. And we don't need the DLC for a green boom. It would be nice to have a boom that is NOT undercut by international free trade at the end of eight years.

[Armstead]

2. NAFTA is just a symptom

There are fundamental economic and political issues at stake.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4477113&mesg_id=4477113

[KittyWampus]

22. NeoLiberalism. Curious how the Housing bubble came along after the DotCom Bubble

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Went through IWR, Globalization, Monica & now ......NAFTA

Is this today's Obama "Blame-it-all-on-Clinton" web talking point?

[sidwill]

4. Whats more relevant?

A discussion off the Clinton's NAFTA support or some nebulous discussion on Cults.

Thats my point, I thought it was obvious but I guess I may have to break out the hand puppets for ya.

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. Not you, that's for sure.

[sidwill]

9. But what do you think is more relevant?

I forgive you for your slap at me but I remain interested in what you think is more important:
A discussion of a very real policy position that affected millions of americans or a fantasy about cults.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. I really can't dignify your bullshit anymore, OK?

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Translation:

"I can't really answer your question without looking like an idiot. I KNOW full well that the 'cult' bullshit is just that, but I don't really know any facts about the position, so I will make snarky comments instead."

Just in case you were being misunderstood.

[Armstead]

15. I respect those who actually disagree more than the empty snark

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Agree.

And thanks for the link in post#2, above. Good thread, if a bit underappreciated.

[Big Blue Marble]

5. Clinton supporters never, never answer the real charges

against their candidate. They only know how to scream insults.

[joshcryer]

14. I can't respond to the non-sense of 99% of people here.

I'm one person.

[joshcryer]

13. www.gapminder.org - You tell me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. According to Carl Bernstein

who is not a great fan of Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton argued against NAFTA with her husband in private. It was Al Gore who argued for NAFTA in public.

[LWolf]

18. Obama supports NAFTA.

He wants to "renegotiate" it. That means that he believes it should stay in place, but be "tweaked" or "fixed."

That means that nothing of substance needs to change, and he can claim credit for the appearanceof change.

Kind of like the many Democrats who promise to "fix" NCLB instead of abolishing it.

Neither candidate holds the high ground on NAFTA.

[vireo]

20. "Neither candidate holds the high ground"

The recent Peru trade pact providing further proof of that sad reality.

With the announcement that Hillary Clinton will join Barack Obama in supporting a new trade deal with Peru that passed in the House last week -- the first in a series of "free-trade" deals that are based on the deeply unpopular NAFTA model and being pushed through Congress by the Bush administration -- the divide between the two Democratic front-runners and the American electorate couldn't be clearer.

There's certainly no constituency for it within the universe of Democratic primary voters -- all of the Peruvian and most American unions oppose it, as do key environmental and anti-poverty organizations -- and it certainly won't win any "swing" voters to the party or make the Democratic brand more popular in any battleground states.

<snip>

The rest of the field has come out in opposition to the Peru agreement, and one candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has gone so far as to call for abolishing the WTO. But like Obama and Clinton, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Bill Richardson are all enthusiastic, self-described "free traders." It's John Edwards, considered a distant third in the race by the punditocracy, who is making the Peru deal into an issue that he hopes will speak to the candidates' overall judgment as well as their concern for issues of economic justice. "Like the failed free trade agreements before it," he said in a statement, "the Peru Agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities."

http://greenchange.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1013

[LWolf]

21. Great link. Thanks. n/t