‘NAFTA-gate’ story takes unexpected turn

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own? I'm not trying to be smug here, but obviously there's going to an enormous amount of misinformation and disinformation about each candidate and we owe it to ourselves to find out just where they stand on issues. Both Hillary and Obama have stated, several times, where they stand on NAFTA. What originally came into question was whether Hillary had changed her tune (which she has), and that's what lead to this smear tactic to discredit Obama's consistent stand against NAFTA as it is constructed.

Every voter is not going to spend hours culling the internet to find answers. If he doesn't have a clear message (and I think statements on his website conflict with his advertising in Ohio) voters aren't going to hear it loud and clear.

I think his campaign and supporters would do well to re-iterate these positons and not worry about finding a smear in every campaign tactic the opposition is going to use, which they will use whether it is Clinton or McCain.

[Dan J 277]

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own? I'm not trying to be smug here, but obviously there's going to an enormous amount of misinformation and disinformation about each candidate and we owe it to ourselves to find out just where they stand on issues. Both Hillary and Obama have stated, several times, where they stand on NAFTA. What originally came into question was whether Hillary had changed her tune (which she has), and that's what lead to this smear tactic to discredit Obama's consistent stand against NAFTA as it is constructed.

Every voter is not going to spend hours culling the internet to find answers. If he doesn't have a clear message (and I think statements on his website conflict with his advertising in Ohio) voters aren't going to hear it loud and clear.

I think his campaign and supporters would do well to re-iterate these positons and not worry about finding a smear in every campaign tactic the opposition is going to use, which they will use whether it is Clinton or McCain.

NAFTA is complicated and it covers many different things from trade to intellectual property rights. Is it possible to show a solid message on this, when the voters candidates are advertising to, are only concerned about a small part of it?

NAFTA to some is a dirty word, without considering the complexity of the agreement.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

His position is very generic and as you say, not that different from HRC. However, the ad he ran attacking her for her previous support sends a bit of a mixed message.

Personally, I think McCain talks the most sense on this issue and I have heard far more specifics from him.

Scrapping NAFTA would be a disaster for my industry as Canada represent billions of dollars in revenues. If we ask them to renegotiate in terms less favorable for them, they could retaliate. That could cost jobs. And their economy is doing a little bit better than ours at the moment.

It's the Economy, Buckaroos

The Roy Rogers cartoon series is currently being produced by a Canadian production company under an arrangement which excludes the participation of American talent. Angelenos in the animated programming field are deeply concerned that most of "their" work is going abroad.

This happens because guilds representing American workers in the entertainment industry were unsuccessful in negotiating a favorable, or even an equal position for their members in the animation industry under NAFTA. Nobody in the industry wants to talk openly about this explosively sensitive situation so, to avoid professional reprisal, this documentation of a deal that went north and commentary on the position of affected workers is written under a pseudonym by a person currently working in the American animation industry.

http://www.cridder.com/glue/3-18-98/rogers.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Clinton Edits 'The Truth'

A Clinton mailer quotes Obama's praise for free trade, but it omits his criticisms.

Summary

Hillary Clinton, stung by an Obama mailer that painted her as a supporter of the North American Free Trade agreement, is responding in kind with a barrage of postcards saying, "Ohio needs to know the truth about Obama's position on Protecting American Workers and NAFTA." But the mailer gives less than the whole truth.

It quotes two news reports of Obama praising NAFTA, but it fails to mention that both are from the same event and leaves out his calls for "fair trade" and increased enforcement – and his criticism of trade agreements negotiated "on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities."

....

We agree with Clinton that any voter "needs to know the truth." We just think it should be the whole truth.

-by Brooks Jackson

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cl..._the_truth.html

[no name 1]

Clinton Edits 'The Truth'

A Clinton mailer quotes Obama's praise for free trade, but it omits his criticisms.

Summary

Hillary Clinton, stung by an Obama mailer that painted her as a supporter of the North American Free Trade agreement, is responding in kind with a barrage of postcards saying, "Ohio needs to know the truth about Obama's position on Protecting American Workers and NAFTA." But the mailer gives less than the whole truth.

It quotes two news reports of Obama praising NAFTA, but it fails to mention that both are from the same event and leaves out his calls for "fair trade" and increased enforcement – and his criticism of trade agreements negotiated "on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities."

....

We agree with Clinton that any voter "needs to know the truth." We just think it should be the whole truth.

-by Brooks Jackson

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cl..._the_truth.html

2 can play that game. Steven.

More NAFTA Nonsense

An Obama mailer uses dubious, disputed statistics about how much the trade deal hurt Ohio workers.

By Lori Robertson | factcheck.org

Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 9:47 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008

Summary

Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading:

* Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain.

* The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.

Analysis

Opposition to NAFTA plays well among Democratic, blue collar voters in Ohio. But the latest salvo from Barack Obama's campaign, a glossy, four-page mailer, uses dubious statistics and an out-of-context quote from Hillary Clinton to appeal to the electorate.

One Million Lost?

The mailer claims that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 ... in Ohio," but those numbers are from a disputed estimate by a liberal think tank with ties to labor unions that opposed the trade deal. We first wrote about the figure in August, when John Edwards used it in a Democratic debate.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118228

Edited March 6, 2008 by illumine

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dev,

I think my point stands - this is all nonsense. To imply that Hillary is above distorting the truth is nonsense. This is politics as usual. Sit comfortably, because we're gonna be seeing a lot more of this, from both sides. I hope it doesn't harm the Party's chances in November though.

[garya505 2]

Personally, I think McCain talks the most sense on this issue and I have heard far more specifics from him.

We'll be hearing a lot of comments like that in the coming months, and it won't just be about NAFTA.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

dueling democrats. all we need now is banjo music.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

dueling democrats. all we need now is banjo music.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

NAFTA is complicated and it covers many different things from trade to intellectual property rights. Is it possible to show a solid message on this, when the voters candidates are advertising to, are only concerned about a small part of it?

NAFTA to some is a dirty word, without considering the complexity of the agreement.

It's not a dirty word to me - I see the benefits, as well as some of the potential drawbacks as it relates to my industry (entertainment).

Do Obama supporters understand this complexity? Then tell me, what specifically is Obama going to renegotiate on NAFTA? Why is the Canadian government worried? Are Clinton operatives working in Ottawa?

Answer in your own words.

[Dan J 277]

NAFTA is complicated and it covers many different things from trade to intellectual property rights. Is it possible to show a solid message on this, when the voters candidates are advertising to, are only concerned about a small part of it?

NAFTA to some is a dirty word, without considering the complexity of the agreement.

It's not a dirty word to me - I see the benefits, as well as some of the potential drawbacks as it relates to my industry (entertainment).

Do Obama supporters understand this complexity? Then tell me, what specifically is Obama going to renegotiate on NAFTA? Why is the Canadian government worried? Are Clinton operatives working in Ottawa?

Answer in your own words.

Right its not really one for me either. In my industry, NAFTA doesn't do anything about competition from India or other places in Asia. But then its something I don't really worry about, since I've never had issues with finding work if I need it. But I can see how someone who is loosing a well paying manufacturing job, would get upset over it, though that should be directed at free trade in general, not specifically NAFTA.

I don't think that many people really do understand the complexity of it. NAFTA is really just a buzzword indicating free trade in some discussions, and actually the agreement in other discussions.

If anything is going to change, is going to relate primarily to manufacturing jobs. I don't think the provision in the agreement that you like will change. But I also don't think that portion is going to be discussed, since it affects a smaller number of people than the manufacturing issues.

Looking at these stats: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

About 10 million people are included in Production occupations and 1.7 million or so in Arts and Entertainment occupations (Although that does include some numbers not entirely related to your industry).

The current party in power in Canada, is conservative and probably prefers pro-business free trade, just like the Republicans do here. Anything done to help workers being displaced by outsourcing would cost businesses more. Which means some jobs may less likely be outsourced to Canada.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So will Obama renegotiate NAFTA so that jobs will no longer outsourced to Canada? (still unclear on the specific proposal here). What will he do if Canada slaps a bunch of tariffs on US imports in retaliation?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So will Obama renegotiate NAFTA so that jobs will no longer outsourced to Canada? (still unclear on the specific proposal here). What will he do if Canada slaps a bunch of tariffs on US imports in retaliation?

I'm sure you'd find Obama and Clinton both supporting this...(date Dec. 2007)

U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda will introduce legislation later this week calling for the United States to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

If five conditions aren't met by the end of 2008, the bill calls for the United States to pull out of NAFTA.

....

Boyda's legislation says the United States needs to see gains in U.S. jobs and living standards, increased domestic manufacturing, improved health standards with respect to food imports from Mexico, reduced flow of illegal drugs from Mexico and Canada and increased human rights in Mexico.

If any of those standards aren't met by 2009, the bill says the United States should withdraw from the trade agreement, said Doug Matties, Boyda's legislative director.

Matties said some of those five goals have specific targets. For instance, an increase in U.S. jobs equals a net gain in jobs as measured by the secretaries of labor and agriculture.

Other goals have more ambiguous targets. It would be up to the U.S. Attorney General's office to determine if the flow of illegal drugs has dropped. And the president would be the judge of whether human rights have improved south of the border.

Boyda said there is a provision in the trade agreement that allows the United States to pull out with six months of notice.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/120407/loc_222668255.shtml

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Steve- I don't care if Clinton supports renegotiating NAFTA. She's not the person who will be asking for clarity on Obama's stance if he gets the nomination. It's a question worth asking both candidates, they BOTH are talking a bunch of populist nonsense they have no intention of following up on in OH.

Do you think pulling out of NAFTA in 9 months time is a good idea? Do you think Canada are going to renegotiate on terms only beneficial to the US?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve- I don't care if Clinton supports renegotiating NAFTA. She's not the person who will be asking for clarity on Obama's stance if he gets the nomination. It's a question worth asking both candidates, they BOTH are talking a bunch of populist nonsense they have no intention of following up on in OH.

Do you think pulling out of NAFTA in 9 months time is a good idea? Do you think Canada are going to renegotiate on terms only beneficial to the US?

Well, as a former UFCW union, Teamsters and Cartoonist Union member, I've been critical of NAFTA since it was passed. It's not a stalwart trade deal that cannot be renegotiated or dissolved with enough political pressure and will. I can understand if you are concerned on a personal level what this would mean to your industry, but I'm sure you are aware of how the unions have responded to this trade agreement. I also realize the devil is in the details and for starters, that means looking at introducing tariffs on goods and services with Canada. Our economy thrived before NAFTA, so there's no need to believe the sky is falling should Obama or Clinton become President and follow through on their stance with NAFTA.

As with Rep. Boyda, I'm not against trade as long as it's fair...and that is starting point of how to bring fairness into trade. I'm not an expert on trade, but tariffs served a purpose prior to NAFTA. The excitement behind free trade was a belief that laissez-fair economics will ultimately work to the benefit of all and that hasn't happened.