Letters to the Editor
-
I thought this news was weird at first.
But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense that if you're going to mouth off about wanting unilateral changes to an international treaty, it only makes sense to do a little pre-damage control with the other countries that might be affected by your intentions to re-negotiate. And I have no doubt that both Clinton and Obama have such intentions. Frankly, if they hadn't spoken to a few people in the other two North American countries about that ahead of time, it would have been pretty irresponsible. So, the only question left is whether Goolsbee actually said it was "just rhetoric," and whether it matters if he did. Because, the point is, even if Clinton and Obama fully intend to work on renegotiation (and, as I said, I think they do), it IS just rhetoric right now. It's a campaign promise, not a unilateral challenge to our friendly neighbors.
-
Uggh
Again: If this had been Clinton on the hook people would be up in arms about how she will say and do anything to get elected.
But its Obama and it all seems understandable.
-
John McCain had a point on this one
When John McCain pointed out that we can't just unilaterally end a treaty, he had a point.
Somehow, I have assumed all along that both Clinton and Obama either were, or would be, taking steps to engage the parties to the NAFTA treaty in some preliminary discussions and reassurances that we weren't going to irresponsibly just pull the plug on national obligations.
Both have said, rightly so, that the treaty needs to be discussed and that there needs to be a level playing field.
First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton's people did not hold similar meetings -- and I think it would be responsible if they did. And second of all, the Dems would end up wearing this one in any debate with McCain if they didn't.
I really don't see this as anyone "gone wild". I see it as Barack Obama (and I'm thinking Hillary, too, because she is a very smart and savvy person) keeping to his pledge of using diplomacy, engaging others in dialogue, including partners at home and abroad in decision-making on global issues.
I don't get why this is any kind of big deal.
-
Red meat
Whoever the Democratic nominee, s/he had better clearly outline what they want to do about NAFTA. If this "covert" conversation rumor is allowed to spill over into the general, The right will be all over it.
-
OK - let's get this straight here
1. Obama has never said he would repeal NAFTA - but would modify it so that US labor and environmental interests were equal across all three countries.
2. The memo was not written by Goolsbee, it was not a direct quote - it was someone else's impressions.
3. Even in those impressions, "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favor of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more "core" principles of the agreement" - which is consistent with item #1.
So - what's the uproar? This is like when Obama said he would pursue an agreement about public financing. He didn't say "I will absolutely accept public financing", it was "I will pursue an agreement on public financing".
So am I missing something, or is this a molehill people are trying to scale like it was Everest?
-
My Impression
My impression from the debates was that neither Clinton nor Obama were talking about scraping NAFTA. They said it needed to be reworked and they were open to using the threat of abandoning the treaty to force a renegotiation.
-
can't scrap NAFTA
Scrapping NAFTA without working to build the infrastructure capable of handling the new necessity to manufacture products in the US would cause a meltdown of product here. The fact is we're currently relying on NAFTA to provide products to US households. Scrapping the treaty, or threatening to do so, would be damaging.
What would need to be done would be an incremental increase in protectionist aspects to the treaty. For instance, requiring that for every certain number of units that a company desires to sell in the US, a percentage of those units have to be manufactured in the US, or the company will suffer a heavy import tariff on those products. That seems to be the most fair way to handle it.
of course, if any candidate actually said that, they'd be labeled a big government socialist.
-
NAFTA is a red herring
Neither Clinton nor Obama would overturn NAFTA. Both recognize that we need trade agreements, and both recognize that the existing trade agreements need to be modified.
For that matter, the fuss over NAFTA is just as much of a red herring. We haven't been losing jobs because of NAFTA. We were losing jobs long before any of the free trade agreements came into existance. American's like their gadgets, and we live a wasteful lifestyle. We consider cheap clothing, food, and electronics a birthright. Wal-Mart has done more to lose American jobs than NAFTA, simply by demanding that suppliers provide them with more and more for less and less money. Even without NAFTA I doubt that the government would be willing to slap high enough tariff's on goods to significantly slow down the flow of jobs out of the U.S. - we would lose our cheap DVD players and virtually free cell phones.
-
Obama is a triangulator
Come on Progressives. Wake out of your dream for just a minute. Could it be that Obama is actually a king of triangulation? Well, the evidence is starting to unfold that he is.
Barack Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009.
He wants republicans in his cabinet.
He is going to talk out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to NAFTA.
He wants to pursue clean energy but keep nuclear power on the table.
He doesn't want to pursue the path to true universal healthcare.
He won't pursue public financing like he said.
I spoke with the president of a local company that was toured by Obama when he was here visiting. He spent an hour with him. He is an admitted conservative. He admitted that Obama is an "electrifying" person. However when I asked if he was ready to be president, he gave a curious answer. He said Hillary is scary to him as a conservative, because he knows she can act fast and implement policies he ideologically and fiscally opposes. On the other hand, Obama will have to come to some consensus and enact it slower, which offers up more time to negotiate. This is what is appealing to him.
At this same meeting, I spoke with an executive at one of the biggest health insurance companies in the state and asked her which healthcare plan, Hillary or Obama's, was better. She replied that we really have to mandate healthcare and that Hillary's was better.
And Krugman op/ed piece today brings up the points I am making here: And I find it interesting that the progressive wing of the progressive party has fallen in love with Obama because it is clear that he is far from being a Kucinich/Feingold, and he is looking to be more and more right-of Hillary.
In addition, he would likely capitulate or, triangulate. And isn't that ironic that our constant bitching of the Clintons was that Bill triangulated. Now we're getting an African-American version of him.
And now the Rezko trial begins and the local reporters are starting to spill the beans about Obama's real experience in local politics. It's time to vet this guy for real. Party's over. We cannot have another Willie Horton moment and hand this over to a bunch of gleeful republicans.