Posted on 11/05/2010 6:06:13 PM PDT by Kaslin
Elections: Among the biggest but least-noticed winners in last week's election were free-trade supporters in, of all places, the industrial Midwest. And here we thought free trade was an electoral loser.
One of the sweetest victories for free-trade proponents was Ohio's election of Republican Rob Portman to the U.S. Senate. Portman served as U.S. Trade Representative under President Bush from 2005 to 2006. During his short tenure, six of America's 17 free-trade pacts were passed. Portman also valiantly tried to get the U.S. onboard for a global free-trade pact at Doha.
Portman's opponent, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, thought he had a sure way to stifle Portman's Senate bid just by touting this record. The conventional wisdom, after all, is that nobody likes free trade.
Fisher also threw Portman's support for expanding trade with China into his brew, mangling facts but delivering the ultimate message that trade of any kind was simply poison in the Buckeye State.
Portman walked off with an 18-point victory — illustrating once again how misguided the protectionist wing of the Democratic Party is. This camp — and fortunately it's not all Democrats — actually believes that U.S. voters oppose free trade.
Its message was used not only in Ohio, but in every tight race. Campaigns from California to Pennsylvania blasted outsourcing, trade with China, free trade and anything else that smacked of exchanging one good or service for another in an open global market.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Anti-trade lobbyists at Public Citizen identified 36 congressional candidates as sufficiently protectionist for their liking; of that number, at least 20 and possibly 21 were thrown out by the voters.
Time for the protectionist faction here on FR to tell us what’s wrong with this picture.
Protectionism is what got President Gephardt elected.
Now if our anti-trade/protectionist wing here at FR would get the hint, too...
In California the free trade issue really helped Whitman and Carly win big... Boxer ran commercials about this to no avail...
Oh Wait.
Even many conservatives despise the misnamed free trade. Most conservatives are not business owners but have to work for a living. Free Trade as practiced is just more social engineering, in this case to drive down the price of wages. (and lower the standard of living).
There are still pockets of union mentality long term unemployable where this crap plays just fine— Murtha’s former district right next to ours where his boy Mark Critz won by 2%.
The tea party crowd is doing everything possible to create a favorable business climate and the free traders become even more obnoxious about it than usual.
If they wanted to service Obama so badly they should have gone to india with him.
We’re all plantation owners now. (I freely admit this may be construed as trolling but it’s intended to be thought provoking) I’m pro free market trade and am well aware of unions pricing themselves out. But Can the “free market “ really be called that if it has communist labor “employed” in it? What’s a pro free market anti-communist to do about global free trade?
Free-trade vs protectionism was not an issue this election cycle.
As the economy sinks further into depression, it will become one.
Since free trade reduces the influence of government over the economy, I have to ask, what in the world are you talking about? Do you think it is the job of government to determine wages and increase your standard of living? If so, you're a big government protectionist. Just look at how bigger government, to protect wages and increase the standard of living, has blessed California.
And some people want more of it. Sheesh.
I’m not against free trade per se...but it needs to be fair trade as well!
Let's get one thing out of the way first--we don't have "free trade" with China, and our relationship with China doesn't really rise to the level of "free market-like," either.
That being said, opening (or closing) one's market can be used as a tool of foreign policy. The debate is whether it is effective, or not. One the one side, you have those that argue that opening markets to China fosters political reform. On the other, you have those that argue China should be punished for its repressive behavior.
Probably, a equal parts of both should be used, but that's just my opinion. It should be safe to say that throwing everything open (and giving away the store) won't help the Chinese people, just like it should be safe to say that it doesn't appear the Cuban embargo has been very effective, either.
(I'm merely talking blackboard-theory; I am not arguing in favor of opening all our markets to the Chinese, nor arguing in favor of lifting the Cuban embargo).
It is inconceivable that American companies want to sell stuff to a country with a population of 1.2 billion people. We should aim lower.
Bingo! Every single Democrat protectionist that was defeated would have still been defeated even if they had been hard-core free-traders instead.
Hu Jintao, world’s most powerful man, communist, dictator, “free trader”.
The “free trade” boosters artificially thrust communism into global prominence. Communism on its own self destructs, but with manna from the US taxpayer through “free trade agreements”,communism can survive and spread.
One wonders why Portman ran for office. To bring communism finally and irrevocably to the American people? That would be my guess.
So, despite the fact that every exit poll everywhere showed that the economy was the foremost in voters’ minds, it was not foremost in voters’ minds. Brilliant.
We won’t rest till every dirt poor indian drives a new caddy. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.