Democratic presidential contenders trash NAFTA

Toronto Star ^ | August 24, 2007 | Tim Harper

[yorkie]

When U.S. President George W. Bush stood beside Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week extolling the benefits of NAFTA, he was pumping up a trade pact that is under increasing pressure here.

It has become a convenient target for those seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination who are following a campaign rite of demonizing trade deals to appease the party's labour base before moving to the centre during the general election.

But in 2007, the North American Free Trade Agreement is under more concerted attack than perhaps any time since it was signed at the beginning of 1994, and Democrats have high hopes of regaining the White House they lost in 2000 to Bush and the Republicans.

Those who are now raining scorn on the deal were among those who heaped praise on it when it was being negotiated 14 years ago.

"I had said for many years that NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers," says Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who was the country's first lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, signed the deal.

Clinton had turned to a key Democrat ally of the day, Bill Richardson, now New Mexico governor and a 2008 contender for the presidential nomination, to get Democrats onside to back the deal.

"We should never have another trade agreement unless it enforces labour protection, environmental standards and job safety," Richardson says now.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's main rival for the Democratic nod, says he would "immediately call the president of Mexico and the president of Canada" – betraying a lack of knowledge of the Canadian political system – to amend NAFTA to get more favourable labour language in the deal.

[ConservativeMind]

Hillery, it was your husband that, if memory serves me, signed NAFTA.

Idiot.

[tcrlaf]

Has anybody bothered to remind this trash that it was LIBERALISM, and the Democratic Party that OUTFORCED all of these good jobs??

Over-Taxation,
Over-Unionization,
Over-Regulation,
Inane Enviro Rules,
and UNLIMITED CIVIL LIABILTY

have all created a high-cost environment in which many companies can no longer compete.

Add in the technical revolution that allows many jobs to be done elsewhere, even from home, and The SATANDARDIZED SHIPPING CONTAINER, that has driven shipping/handling costs to historic lows, and you have a recipe for disaster...

[gondramB]

Interesting for the opponents of NAFTA here. Free trade is a conservative principle - when one opposes free trade one sides with unions, nanny staters and other anti-free market forces.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Hillery, it was your husband that, if memory serves me, signed NAFTA.

NAFTA, illegals?

Nothing to see here folks...

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The Dems are triangulating here. Certain Republicans such as Ron Paul & Duncan Hunter are opposed to binding trade agreements.

[Darkwolf377]

"I had said for many years that NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers," says Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who was the country's first lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, signed the deal.

If HRC were a Republican, the left and right would be united in mocking her for the outrageous BS she shovels every day.

I'm against this war I voted for... I was the co-president who signed NAFTA which I'm against... I stand for independent women but how dare you get into my personal space you mean MAN, you, oh, and we have to destroy those women Bill slept with...

I wish someone would have the cojones to really take it to this IDIOT.

[mjolnir]

Well put and very true; it is impossible to tax one’s country into prosperity, and in the end, a tariff is just another kind of tax.

But the argument for free trade appears to have been lost in the hearts and minds of the American people; even those politicians who wholly support it like Fred Thompson don’t seem willing to make an issue of their support, presumably because polling tells them it’s the third rail of politics.

[yorkie]

>>Hillery, it was your husband that, if memory serves me, signed NAFTA.<<

Yes, Bill Clinton signed it, but it was GHW Bush who implemented it on September 18, 1992. Here is a portion of his letter to Congress (almost 15 years ago) regarding NAFTA:

In accordance with section 1103 (a) (1) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (”Act”), I am pleased to notify the House of Representatives and the Senate of my intent to enter into a North American Free Agreement (NAFTA) with the Governments of Mexico and Canada.

This historic agreement represents a comprehensive charter to liberalize trade and investment flows on this continent. NAFTA will link us to our first- and third-largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, respectively, to create one of the world’s largest and richest markets, with over 360 million consumers and over $6.4 trillion in annual output. It will enhance the ability of North American producers to compete in world markets, spur economic growth on the continent, expand employment, and raise living standards.

We are at the dawn of a new era. The threat of global nuclear warfare is gone. The prolonged Cold War struggle against totalitarianism, fought over half a century through immense sacrifices by countless American men and women, has ended in freedom’s victory.

Click here for the rest of George Bush, Sr.’s letter to Congress:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n39_v3/ai_12849685

[DakotaRed]

"I had said for many years that NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers," says Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who was the country's first lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, signed the deal.

"The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993."

Republicans didn't take control of Congress until 1995, after winning big in 1994. Although advocated by Bush 1 (who can not really be considered a conservative), it was passed, signed into law and implemented by the very ones complaining about it now.

[antiunion person]

I wish someone with intestinal fortitude would reverse NAFTA and the building of the international highway splitting our country in half.

[RebelTex]

            THE NAFTA PLAYING FIELD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Cost of Labor

        USA
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
UNIONS
Minimum Wage
Social Security
Benefit Plans                      
Workers Comp.                   3rd World Countries
OSHA                                             $$$
FDA                                     Slave labor/wages
CPSC                                   Child labor/wages
EPA                                      Few regulations

 Free Trade is NOT free when the playing field is unequal.

[LibLieSlayer]

The only way for a Republican to beat this beast is to take it to her in spades... Republican candidates are well aware... and one semi-candidate has been taking opportunities to try out his left jab on her scaled dragon chin! She will face heat in the General that she is NOT prepared for... and there is no way that she can prepare... America already knows her recent history all too well and she cannot hide from it.

LLS

[Ben Ficklin]

The nuts and bolts of NAFTA were negotiated/written by Bush, Sr. The investor protections that this article is talking about were written by the Reagan Whitehouse and would become known as Chapter 11, although some of them fall into Chapter 20.

At that time, it was explained to Congress that the investor protections were needed because when US companies/investors went into Latin America to do business, these countries would impose taxes masquerading as regulations. In a sense, the investor protections were to be shield to protect the investors. And they were.

But, additionally, the lawyers turned the shield into a sword and used the investors protections to attack existing regulatory law.

This is why you will hear dems saying that the VRWC is trying to roll back the New Deal.

[1rudeboy]

NAFTA, illegals?
Nothing to see here folks....

Like a connection between the two? LOL

[LantzALot]

Hillery, it was your husband that, if memory serves me, signed NAFTA.

Memory serves you. Let my memory add:
1. He and the then Democratic majority on the Hill squelched any debate by calling for "fast track."
2. He turned to the unions which put him in office and raised his middle finger at them -- and they meekly backed down.

[gondramB]

>> Free Trade is NOT free when the playing field is unequal.<<

Well, you are never going to prevent other countries from having lower wages. So you can have varients on three choices:

1. Have trade with them with no agreement
2. Put up trade barriers to stop trade
3. Have trade with them in an agreement that forces as much of the same regulatory burden on them as there is on us.

NAFTA, President Reagan’s dream is the best deal we could get. Free Trade agreements are like democracy - for all its faults, they are still better than the alternatives.