Job creation is certainly a key issue for my family and friends living in Indiana. And I think Sen. Clinton is the best person to fix the mess left by Bush & Co.
Much has been written about Sen. Clinton's position on NAFTA, and Taylor Marsh hopes this will put the issue to rest.
From Sally Bedell Smith's book on the Clintons I excised two short snippets. Now, Ms. Smith is not pro-Clinton. As far as I know she's not anti-Clinton. She also did a tough biography and Jack and Jackie Kennedy's marriage. One thing she does have is access, which produced nuggets that dismantle the Obama team's drivel that Hillary was ever pro NAFTA. Sally Bedell Smith is rough enough on the Clintons in her book that you can take these two sections, which reveal the heart of Hillary's antipathy towards NAFTA, to the bank.... The economic team and other key advisors, including Mack McLarty, Mickey Kantor, and David Gergen, were likewise urging Bil to use his momentum to push for congressional ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). ...had been negotiated by the Bush administration and was slated to expire if not ratified by January 1, 1994. Liberal Democrats, including Hillary, opposed it primarily because it could take jobs away from American workers. But as an advocate of global economic cooperation, Bill was drawn to its free-trade philosophy. ... ..Opponents of Clinton, including Senator Obama and his Obama bloggers, like to point to NAFTA saying that Hillary was for it when her husband was pushing for ratification in January 1994. When was the last time a first lady openly opposed an important policy of her president husband? This, evidently, is what Hillary Clinton was expected to do. It's nonsense.
For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith (pg. 117)... ..Another evending, the Jordans arranged a dinner at a restaurant with Paul Allaire, the chairman of Xerox, and his wife, Kay. "Clinton really wanted to talk to Paul about NAFTA, to get the view of business," recalled Kay Allaire. "Hillary made clear that she opposed NAFTA. The President was curious, asking lots of questions, listening carefully. Hillary remained aloof and said little. ..."Clear enough for you?
For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith (pg. 120)
25 comments:
It is in her itinerary that she went to Congress to lobby in support of NAFTA. Later she listed it as one of the successes of her husband's first term. Whether or not she opposed it behind closed doors, she is not innocent in the passage of the treaty.
If she had remained publicly silent on the issue, no one would have noticed and she could claim the high ground now, but she didn't and it is the public's perception of her public actions and words, not her closed door, back room politicking that get noticed.
One would expect someone "ready for prime time" would have long since realized that.
It seems well documented that she did not support NAFTA. And to be clear, that she may have supported her husband a dozen years ago or so in no way reflects on whether or not she is ready to be president today.
Clearly, when Obama is currently saying that Republicans have "good ideas" he's NOT ready for prime time.
The rookie mistakes he KEEPS making could cost Democrats the election in November. Hopefully the superdelegates are paying attention.
BAC
NAFTA did not take one single job from Americans. All it does is allow Americans more ability to buy the best products or contract with the best workers. It does not force anyone to buy Mexican.
Thankfully, both Hillary and Barack have waffled on NAFTA, and their tenative words indicate that they will really leave it alone.
We don't need to be forced to over-pay for products, or reward businesses that aren't very good at what they do.
"Clearly, when Obama is currently saying that Republicans have "good ideas" he's NOT ready for prime time."
Half of Americans are republicans. No Democrat could possibly with without reaching across this aisle.
Would you say a balanced budget is a good idea? That was a Republican idea. Campaign finance reform? Those are the two I can think of off of the top of my head, but I'm sure there are other initiatives Republicans have proposed that are good.
As for NAFTA, anonymous, it did take jobs from Americans because no environmental or workers' rights provisions were included so corporations were able to outsource to cheaper labor in these other countries for pennies on the dollar. The little bit we gained in being able to sell our agricultural products was more than offset by these losses.
John - did they teach history in your high school? Balancing the budget and campaign finance reform are NOT "Republican" ideas. In fact, one of the reasons McCain is in trouble with his base is because he supported campaign finance reform when his party DIDN'T. And if balancing the budget is a "Republican" idea, then why does the budget always seem to bloat when Republicans are in control? And that doesn't even really address the national debt, where two Republican presidents have set records.
Did your school text books come from Texas?
BAC
I don't disagree that under Republicans our debt has soared. But a balanced budget was the number one action item of the "Contract with America". This is history.
John McCain was the driving force behind campaign finance reform, and, last I checked, he is a Republican. This too, is history.
Good ideas can come from either party. So can bad ideas. I personally, and it is pretty clear that Obama, Clinton, and you agree, believe that the Democratic candidates have better ideas than the Republicans. But this belief does not prevent Republicans from having some good ideas too. Clinton herself praised some of Reagan's actions in the last debate.
John - your response is what I'm talking about ... do you HONESTLY think the Contract ON America was anything other than a Republican stunt to funnel money way from programs that actually help people to Republcan pork barrel projects?
And McCain was no more a "driving force" on campaign finance reform than was Sen. Russ Feingold, who I'm pretty sure is a Democrat. And finally, Clinton talked about Reagan's ability to communicate, not his policies ... huge difference.
Are you now writing Republican talking points for Obama???? Do you WANT four more years of McSame????
BAC
Half of Americans are republicans.
Party identification is currently running about 52% Democratic to 37% Republican, after being stuck at about 43%-to-43% for decades. Why make concessions to an ideology which the public has turned against?
Would you say a balanced budget is a good idea? That was a Republican idea.
Bill Clinton turned the deficit into a surplus. Under Bush the deficit has exploded again. Actions speak louder than words.
Bill Clinton was forced to balance the budget by rules passed by a Republican legislature. Newt Gingrich, for all his wrongs, was right on this measure. This doesn't make Republicans always right, but they aren't always wrong either. Once Bush got in office, they did screw up on this, but initially they were right and they had a good idea.
Clinton, if I am remembering correctly, I would have to find a transcript to be certain, praised Reagan's idea to create a bi-partisan committee to reassess social security in order to strengthen it. I agree with both of them that this was a good idea.
Clearly, Clinton thinks McCain had a good idea with this gas tax "holiday" debacle. Personally, as I have already said, I think this is the most idiotic proposal they could come up with and a great way to raise gas prices and oil company profits.
People of both parties have good ideas. People of both parties have bad ideas. Personally, I think the Republicans' ideas on key issues are generally wrong while the Democrats are generally right. But this varies person by person, which is why I vote on the issues and not the party/gender/race.
john j. said:"Bill Clinton was forced to balance the budget by rules passed by a Republican legislature. Newt Gingrich, for all his wrongs, was right on this measure."
Nope. See the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993:
"Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill,...
The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office."
You may be thinking of the Balanced Budget Amendment that was proposed the the Contract With America in 1994 but never actual passed at any point in the Clinton Presidency.
Balanced budget and surpluses thanks to Democrats through the use of tax increases and careful cutting. As opposed to the horrific Republican ideas which you seem to be praising which merely proposed slashing social services to cut the Budget.
If you read the House summary of the CBO report you'll see: "So what are the precise reasons for this dramatic turnaround since President Bush left office with a $290 billion deficit? The CBO has issued data that answers this question objectively and decisively.
According to the CBO data, the remarkable fiscal turnabout has been due to three primary factors: An improved economy with six years of sustained growth; legislation passed by the 103rd Democratic Congress in 1993 and 1994; and a slower rise in the cost of medical care (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid) than projected.
Conspicuously absent from CBO's analysis of reasons for the 1998 surplus is the fiscal effect of laws enacted by Republican congresses between 1995 and the present date. The reason for this is that the CBO actually totes up legislation enacted in the period that Republican have been in control of Congress as raising the deficit by more than it cut in 1998. The sum total of laws passed by the 104th and 105th Republican congresses will cost the Treasury roughly $11,000,000,000 more in FY 1998 than they saved."
MWB - John is trying to rewrite history to make Obama seem acceptable. For the life of me I can't understand why EITHER of them would want to praise Republicans to try and win a DEMOCRATIC primary?
BAC
John is trying to rewrite history to make Obama seem acceptable.
Hell, it sounds like he's trying to rewrite history to make Bush seem acceptable.
The possibility of Hillary Clinton actually winning the nomination instead of Obama is now looking more realistic than it has at any time in the last couple of months.
I get the feeling that John J is prepping himself psychologically to vote Republican if that happens.
My argument, through this entire thread, has been that moral certitude of the sort you are prescribing is no better than the moral certitude of Dobbson or Fallwell or Coulter. All people, regardless of their party affiliation, can have good ideas. Being unwilling to accept this will just give us another four years of nothing done in Washington. Obama knows this. He is also honest enough with himself to be able to admit this. He, unlike Sen. Clinton, does not believe in demonizing his opponents, cost be damned.
I have never once said that the Republicans are the only ones right on things, that would be no better than what you are saying. I have also not praised anything Bush has said, so don't try to put words in my mouth, Infidel. I will not vote for McCain come November, no matter the Democrat.
MWB, I had not heard of this act before, but looking at it, it has nothing to do with a balanced budget. Its theoretical goal may have been for that, but this was a tax increase. The balanced budget amendment proposal is the idea I have been saying is good. In fact, it is so good that both Democratic presidential candidates have it as one of their key economic proposals. What the Republicans wanted to cut to get to this was wrong, but the core idea of requiring a balanced budget, where new expenses (*cough*Iraq war*cough*) have to be balanced by and equal new income or current expense cut, is an incredibly good idea.
John - you are trying to get us to believe that Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan HAD morals ... which they DIDN'T. Newt served divorce papers on his first wife while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. He helped lead the impeachment charge against Bill Clinton while he was having an affair with his third wife -- and giving her a 100% pay increase with no change of title or responsibility (yes, at TAXPAYER expense).
And Ronald Reagan is responsible for the millions of lives lost to HIV/AIDS. A name he refused to even SAY until six years into the epidemic. He could have increased funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, but instead they cut funding at a time when the epidemic could have been prevented or at least dramatically decreased.
Neither of these men deserve ANY praise from the American public, and the fact that YOU do -- and Sen. Obama (at least of Reagan) -- demonstrates that neither of you understand the history of this country or, for Obama, ready to be in any sort of leadership position.
BAC
Sen. Clinton praised Reagan numerous times as well, are you going to divorce yourself of her too?
John ... John ... John ... please take your rose colored glasses off and TRY and see the reality here. Obama has said MORE THAN ONCE that Reagan had GOOD IDEAS. Clinton has said A FEW TIMES that Reagan was a good speaker. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in the meaning of these two comments. That you can't see it underlines one of YOUR biggest problems.
BAC
She picked him as one her "favorite presidents". That says a bit more than "he is a good speaker." Maybe you need to check who has which glasses on?
John - you're providing a link from MICHELLE MALKIN to try and make your point! Just how much of a Republican have you become?????
Geezzzz
BAC
I don't know who Malkin is, but the article she quotes, quotes Clinton listing Reagan as one of her favorite presidents. If you prefer, I will give you the direct link to Sen. Clinton's website Malkin is quoting http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Also, I have to ask if you realize the hypocrisy of saying this while more than happily quoting Faux News when you want to criticize Obama.
John, John, John ... spend a few minutes on Michelle's web site and you will know who she is. I'm really surprised you have never heard of her.
The link provides a second hand source, that is part of a larger message. Of course the Sen. is going to include an endorsement on her web site, but where is the actual quote?
And PLEASE try and recognize the difference here ... read the headline below "MoveOn Thinks FOX News Got the Best of Obama." My purpose in posting this was to demonstrate that MoveOn thinks Obama blew it in his appearance on FOX.
John, please tell me you are smart enough to understand the difference here ... oh, wait ... you think it's okay for Obama to praise Republicans while involved in a hotly contested Democratic primary .... NEVER MIND.
BAC
Actually, I am talking about your posts of the Faux News hand picked "Obama supporters"
As for Malkin, I went with what came up near the top from a Google search. I didn't spend any time on the site other than to validate the facts of the post.
For further evidence of Clinton supporting (what I think are bad) Republican ideas there is her endorsement of McCain's gas tax "holiday" and McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb; bomb bomb Iran" quote.
Hummm ... sort of like State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-TX, speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign on MSNBC, who couldn't name a single accomplishment? ha (posted 2-20-08)
I suggest you take a look at Malkin's site, and you will see why it's really silly to quote anything from her.
And Sen. Clinton is NOT supporting McCain's gas tax, nor does she support McCain's Iran quote. You are simply getting desperate here, John, and it's not at all becoming.
Sen. Clinton met with the editorial board at the Indianapolis Star recently, and explained to them how her gas tax holiday differs from Sen. McCains. Too bad Obama doesn't believe in helping people during tough times.
BAC
I've gone over the math twice now on my site, once when McCain proposed this and again just the other day when Clinton did. $20 over three months, if it worked perfectly, isn't going to help anyone. I would rather these politicians went door to door giving me the five gallons that would pay for.
This plan also ignores the most basic premise of economics - price is determined by demand vs. supply. Removing the tax doesn't help the supply any and the demand would go up. Thus prices won't be helped during this "holiday" and this means that high gas prices would actually be far worse after the holiday summer than they would be without it. Then Clinton is proposing an extra tax on the oil companies that will just be passed on to us in higher costs.
So, in summation, McCain is calling for a gas tax holiday with no replacement taxing that will hurt road/bridge maintenance and do nothing for gas prices. Clinton is calling for a gas tax holiday funded by increasing taxes on oil companies (who will forward the cost on to us), thus raising gas prices for us for a longer period of time.
I disagree with your analysis, but let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. It must mean then that Obama favors citizens paying a higher price for gas at the pump (during the summer months when they are most likely to want to drive), while oil companies continue to make record-breaking profits. Looks like Obama must be in the pocket of the big oil companies.
BAC
Oil prices won't go down, even with a gas tax holiday. No economist thinks it will. During this holiday, oil companies will make massive profits. McCain doesn't propose any "windfall tax" - which means they get to keep all the money. Clinton proposes a windfall tax, but that cost will just get passed on to us, which means they still get to pocket all the money.
No matter which plan, oil companies will make record profits this year. Obama at least is talking sense in saying we need to conserve and he gives very strong plans to do so (unfortunately, they will take longer than this year).
How can you disagree that a $0.184 per gallon tax break will total between $20 and $30 per driver over three months? What math are you using?
Post a Comment