Skip to main content

Bloomberg News tonight reports that President Bush will be stumping this week with Fortune 500 CEOs to pressure Democrats to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement - a deal that expands NAFTA into South America. Bush is simultaneously threatening to veto a bill to provide aid to workers who lose their jobs thanks to NAFTA-style trade deals.

Incredibly, the Hill Newspaper reports that the House Democratic leadership - specifically Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) - is now officially whipping votes to get Democrats to support the Peru deal in a vote this week, even though most of the new lawmakers who delivered the Democrats the congressional majority specifically campaigned against NAFTA-style trade agreements.

The Hill Newspaper story assesses the fight within the Democratic Party, noting that the battle is also bleeding into the presidential race this week, thanks to John Edwards big announcement against the Peru deal, and thanks to the Iowa lawmakers leading the fight against the deal.

The intensity of the anger from rank-and-file Democrats is stunning:

"There’s been a lot of pressure on the rank and file to support this deal," said Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), who opposes the deal. "It’s disappointing that Democratic leaders are not in sync with the American people."

Fearful that trade agreements will further add to a poisonous political environment — like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was passed before the GOP routed the Democrats in the 1994 midterm election — some Democrats are furious they are being forced to vote on the measure.

"We have a base that does not think we’re getting enough done. If we give them another dose of NAFTA ... I’m left to wonder what [that does]," freshman Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.) said in a phone interview.

The politics of the deal has also seeped into the presidential race. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has announced his opposition to the U.S.-Peru agreement. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), however, has said he will support the deal. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is undecided.

"Democrats could lose the presidency because of trade...The American people feel there is no difference between a Democrat and Republican. [President Bill] Clinton brought us NAFTA and now a Democratic Congress will bring us Peru," said Michaud, chairman of the House Trade Working Group. (emphasis added)

The politics really are unfathomable, both when you consider the polling on the issue and when you consider that the same Democratic Party that was politically stung by NAFTA in 1994 is now, months after an election, pushing another set of NAFTAs. Then again, as I told the Hill and as I wrote in a nationally syndicated column a few weeks ago, perhaps the politics are predictable.

The Democratic Party is still very much dominated by its Wall Street wing - the group primarily made up of former Clinton administration officials who traded in their public service to become corporate lobbyists and push deals like this. That this pernicious influence has enough muscle in Washington to override the mandate of the last election and get the supposed party of the little guy to run over the little guy is testament to just how corrupt our political system really is.

Then again, as the Hill also notes, we do have a courageous group of Democrats trying to stop their party from selling out the middle class. And you can help these progressives by using this tool from Public Citizen to tell your representatives to vote against the Peru Free Trade Agreement and reject the NAFTA trade model once and for all.

Originally posted to davidsirota on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:49 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (237+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    selise, Sharon, cdreid, Angie in WA State, DeminNewJ, vicki, Marek, northsylvania, Jon Meltzer, canyonrat, Paleo, GeckoBlue, Odysseus, ferg, XOVER, importer, Raybin, marcvstraianvs, cosbo, philgoblue, Fishgrease, Heimyankel, LynChi, shayera, OLinda, be inspired, cookiesandmilk, eeff, x, Sandy on Signal, ManfromMiddletown, freelunch, caliberal, RFK Lives, shpilk, Matilda, Smallbottle, Gustogirl, opinionated, fabacube, joynow, bronte17, skrymir, matthewc, BlackGriffen, Cassandra77, groggy, DaleA, peace voter, chuckvw, roses, cognitive dissonance, nargel, Miss Blue, ctsteve, arkdem, antirove, Janet Strange, antifa, oldjohnbrown, Dr Colossus, The Truffle, superscalar, etorrey, grannyhelen, cometman, Munibond, grayslady, 2liberal, attydave, AbsurdEyes, Dood Abides, Brian82, Dave925, dkmich, DelicateMonster, Redbug, DrReason, jre2k8, poemworld, TheOrchid, mosesfreeman, patginsd, kd texan, greeseyparrot, Gowrie Gal, rapala, greenskeeper, Skennet Boch, la motocycliste, rstnfld, Skaje, jrooth, Alexander G Rubio, ichibon, docangel, asskicking annie, baccaruda, JanetT in MD, PBen, Paul Goodman, kuvasz, frandor55, SoCalLiberal, EJP in Maine, Salo, Mz Kleen, Chaoslillith, buckeyedem08, civil society, pasadena beggar, annefrank, BobOak, lasky57, martik, Rydra Wrong, wulidancer, The Raven, Zack from the SFV, FightTheFuture, dem4evr, sodalis, SignalSuzie, jct, Jim P, DisNoir36, Denny in Seattle, martini, esquimaux, keefer55, Do Tell, tarheelblue, jsamuel, sherlyle, andydoubtless, koNko, Mensor, Nestor Makhnow, Junior Bug, isis2, greenearth, Lefty Coaster, NBBooks, DarkestHour, tecampbell, NC Dem, Sagebrush Bob, NearlyNormal, BalkanID, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, el cid, ER Doc, Dinclusin, ChapiNation386, Dyana, IL clb, vox humana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, pkbarbiedoll, Snarcalita, slksfca, illusionmajik, seabos84, lams712, bigchin, Randall Sherman, xaxado, SparkleMotion, peagreen, Cottagerose, Nab, uniongal, ricsec7, America08, la urracca, yowsta, david mizner, NCDem Amy, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, deepeco, DWG, dissonantdissident, newpioneer, gatorbot, artisan, ca democrat, progressivevoice, brentmack, jedennis, FOS, jnhobbs, rrheard, pioneer111, electric meatball, cacamp, sable, Hens Teeth, TomP, alba, jgilhousen, MKinTN, kafkananda, dragoneyes, scooter in brooklyn, spencerh, SmedleyButlerUSMC, skohayes, okamichan13, Akonitum, jamess, peaceloveandkucinich, 123Mary123, hollysnj, SmileySam, kyril, Andy823, numen, valsagem, LaEscapee, echatwa, James Kresnik, Michael 4 Edwards, junta0201, lenzy1000, BlueGenes, CatfishBlues, Ellinorianne, invisiblewoman, Chad Michaels, malibu1964, Glacial Erratic, wmacdona66, AimlessDriver, Traveling Companion I, Let Them Call Me Rebel, emmabrody
      •  the short and sweet (49+ / 0-)

        Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

        taken from posts below

        How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?

        by ca democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:42:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  apparently Dems love these corporate deals too (50+ / 0-)

          To hell with the middle class and unions and the Dem Party that used to represent them!!  Go shopping, see a movie - there's no need to vote because the corporate media is now in control and will choose the next corporate President.

          Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

          by annefrank on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:53:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

            •  I'd really like to know, too (7+ / 0-)

              This doesn't sound right at all.  What could possibly be going on there?

              •  He's always been a Neoliberal (5+ / 0-)

                We may agree with him on a host of other things, but he's always been a "free" trade, WTO IMF fan.

                •  That's why he looks so DLCish, to me. Hell, to (0+ / 0-)

                  them, even!  When he became a Senator, they added him to the DLC rolls.  He had to request to be removed from them.  Guess he didn't want to telegraph his intentions too soon!

                  I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and posit that he really does not understand very well the ranifications of what he is doing on this.  He went to Harvard Law, not exactly a bastion of disadvantaged people!!  

                  To be fair however, his upbringing is rather middle class and diverse, but not privileged.  I do believe it is in him to take a better, more classic liberal Dem (pro-union, middle class, regulated/tariffed trade) outlook but he needs some real education and/or experience to do so since looking back in history seems to not be an option!  He could really go DLC like and seems to be leaning economic conservative/neo-liberal at this time.

                  You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

                  by FightTheFuture on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:04:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know, what is he thinking? (6+ / 0-)

              And if Obama's going along...I don't think there's any chance of getting a filibuster, because he usually votes with the majority of Dems.

              During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

              by kyril on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:08:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  a weather vane usually moves in a direction (3+ / 0-)

                determined by the wind.

                "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

                by NearlyNormal on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:40:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Follow the $--it's the most obvious lead (7+ / 0-)

                  It is kind of a reversal of usual positions here.  I would've expected HRC to be in favor while Obama was on the fence.  It's nice to know that Edwards is, as usual, taking the correct position.

                  This move shows how powerless Pelosi truly is.  She needs consensus in her caucus at a critical time on Iraq (and Iran), and she has Hoyer and Rangel sowing dissension.  She can't control the BD's on Iraq, and she can't control the K Streeters on trade.

                  Both she and Reid are largely figureheads.

                  Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                  by RFK Lives on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lots of work left to do (0+ / 0-)

                    in the upcoming decade.  Passing a lot of problems down to our kids.  Just like the "greatest" generation did to us.

                    "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

                    by NearlyNormal on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:18:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The statement by Senator Baucus (0+ / 0-)

                Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance committee issued a statement that spoke of how this trade agreement is better than earlier agreements:

                "This agreement holds the bar higher than ever to protect labor and environmental
                standards that will benefit generations to come," said Baucus. "But it should be noted that
                this pact will deliver benefits today, too. It will deliver the fair deal that American workers
                and businesses deserve from their trading partners. I’m pleased with the opportunities this
                pact will provide the people in both countries, and hope it can be used as a framework for
                agreements to come."

                http://finance.senate.gov/...

                Obviously there is a contradiction between this and the position of so many organizations of undeniable credibility. Obviously, they do not think the worker and environmental provisions go far enough. If Obama is at this time for it - it may be things like this have made the agreement look better than it is. (It's kind of hard to make the opposite assumption that all those organizations simultaneously got it wrong.)

                •  I have said it before (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  uscitizenvoter

                  The average daily wage in Peru is nine dollars.

                  Where the 'competition'?

                  Where is the 'fair deal that American workers and businesses deserve from their trading partners'?

                  Just like Levi Strauss moved to a country where the average daily wage is five dollars, and does not manufacture a product in the US anymore, more US multinationals will simply move their production from where the daily wage is more than nine dollars a day to Peru.

                  And what we will end up with at the logical extreme of the experiment is a US daily wage of somethng around nine dollars a day.

                  In the end -- that's how we compete -- on wages.

                  'Fair Trade' Is A Mirage.

                  <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                  by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:06:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am not questioning that at all (0+ / 0-)

                    simply suggesting that Obama - if he is for this - may be accepting the words of Baucus. I thought the statement from the Chair of the committee which sent it to the floor might be of some interest.

                    Note - I did say I do NOT think that every relevant issue organization got it wrong.

            •  another example of his 'new' politics. ha ha ha. (8+ / 0-)

              Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

              by seabos84 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:50:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just add snake handling (0+ / 0-)

                and gay bashing and there you have it- the new corporate Democrat, same as the old corporate Democrat with just a tad more religiosity.

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

                by Dave925 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:20:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's out of line (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RFK Lives

                  and DrWolfy publicly wonders where I get the idea that many liberals are openly hostile toward religion... or did you have any actual reason to add snake handling to your list?

                  The "more religiosity" bit is welcome, if that's really who Obama is (and I'm convinced it is; he did turn down run-of-the-mill legal work straight out of Harvard Law to work for a group of churches).  The vote for a Peru free trade agreement is not welcome.  It's a shame when someone's personal hang-up with religion muddies the waters with Peru.

                  •  Religion (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, esquimaux, seabos84, BlueGenes

                    Has no place in government. Period. You're entitled to believe whatever. You are not entitled to shove it down our throats and any candidate who panders to it- not on my short list, let's just put it that way.

                    I am anti religion in government. Other than that, whatever floats your boat. The problem is the "religious" take that to mean "anti-religion", which is preposterous.

                    I try to tell people religious people aren't all a bunch of whiners, so insecure they're bent on forcing their beliefs on us and terrified of anything they can't understand and need their imaginary friends to cope but comments like this one makes it a hard case to pitch.

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

                    by Dave925 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:36:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  He is quite a bit more... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dave925, sherlyle

              ...conservative than people think he is.

              I could be wrong but didn't he vote for the bankruptcy bill or for cloture on it or something like that.  My memory fails me this late at night.

              We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

              by delver rootnose on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:53:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Obama probably cares about the facts (0+ / 0-)

              All the rhetoric aside, free trade is good fro the United States in general.  I assume Obama supports it because he believes it is good for the country.

              Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

              by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:33:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Begone freeper troll (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlueGenes

                "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

                by Quanta on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:58:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lots of Freepers hate free trade (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sherlyle

                  I've never understood why so many Kossacks have the same attitude on trade as Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly.

                  •  Corporations are for it! (0+ / 0-)

                    So it must be bad!

                    Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                    by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:26:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  They Should, Everyone Should (0+ / 0-)

                    If this is something even ultra left-n-right wing activists can agree on, we should definately put the breaks on it. Then should build on that unity to re-instate the corporate death penalty, something freepers should also get behind (I hear they like anything with the words 'death penalty' in it, so this too should be a breeze).

                    This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                    by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:04:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Begone Luddism (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Odysseus, Utahrd

                  Free trade is the topic of political discourse on the Left that frustrates me the most.  People don't seem to care about facts or the real effects (mostly positive, but some negative) of trade.  For the majority of people on this thread it seems that the answer is obvious:  Corporations are for it, so we should be against it.  No facts or thought or analysis needed.

                  But of course free trade is not only inevitable, but its good for the majority of people on the Earth.  There is no rational reason why the world should be divided up into 194 national economies, especially given modern communications and transportation.

                  But liberals should not forget the anger and fear among many works created by trade and the loss of jobs it causes in some sectors.  We need to support more free trade, but we also need to make sure there is a safety net for workers who are hurt by trade.  Above all, this means government must guarantee health care and a secure retirement for all workers.  We also need to increase funding for the job retraining programs that Clinton started.  Etc.

                  Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                  by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:25:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Some jobs are more equal than others (0+ / 0-)

                    It's OK if Democrats who work in international trade in Florida, Texas, California, New Jersey, etc lose their jobs once we pass Smoot Hawley II.

                    But it's not OK for people who work in textile mills in Kentucky who weren't ever going to vote Democratic anyway because their preacher told them that Democrats will allow gays to marry.

                    •  IF you have a point, (0+ / 0-)
                      feel free to make it.  But your cloaked bullshit has no place in any discussion.

                      -7.75 -4.67

                      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                      by Odysseus on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:15:19 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I guess we don't count (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        uscitizenvoter

                        Free trade creates jobs.  Sometimes but not often enough, unionized railroad, Teamster & Longshore jobs.

                        I still can't figure out why our jobs are less important than other people's jobs?

                        •  How many jobs are created (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          uscitizenvoter

                          Relative to the number of jobs that are lost?

                          <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                          by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:09:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's some statistics (0+ / 0-)

                            Plenty of jobs were created before the Supreme Court appointed an economic illiterate to the presidency.

                            Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, the unemployment rate for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent today and the African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent to 26.1 percent in 1998 — the lowest level recorded, and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty since 1967-1972. At the same time, the typical African-American household’s income is up $3,317.
                            Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October of 1992 to 5.0 percent today. The Hispanic poverty rate has dropped from 29.6 percent to 25.6 percent — the lowest since 1979. And over the past three years, the income of the typical Hispanic household has risen $3,880 — or 15.9 percent — the largest three-year increase in Hispanic income on record.

                            Poverty rates are at record lows, with the African American poverty rate down to the lowest level on record, the Hispanic American poverty rate down to the lowest level since 1979, and the Asian American poverty rate as low as it’s ever been. Poverty among African American children has also dropped to the lowest level on record.

                  •  Holy crap- I dont have time to respond- (7+ / 0-)

                    But is it really good for us to purchase our food from other continents?  It's good to waste the energy to get it here?  It's good to have our products made in places with lax labor and envirnmental standards?  It's good to have our products made in places with no consumer protection services?  

                    Bullshit.  

                    It's not good for america to force its workers to compete against slave labor and factories that ignore pollution standards.  It may bring us cheap goods, but as a result, that's all we can afford.  Switzerland and Germany still have manufacturing trade surpluses.  We don't have to send our manufacturing overseas.  We choose to.... because corporate America and our government worship short-term fiduciary duty.

                    •  Thanks For The Holy Crap! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

                      "But is it really good for us to purchase our food from other continents?  It's good to waste the energy to get it here?  It's good to have our products made in places with lax labor and environmental standards?  It's good to have our products made in places with no consumer protection services?  

                      Bullshit." - Hardleft  

                      They're all looking for the next quarterly profits, while neglecting the disaster they're creating just a few years down the road.

                      Of course, the tiny handful who champion these give-away agreements are never subjected to the fall-out.  It's truly criminal and probably treasonous in my opinion.

                  •  A safety net isn't the same as working. (n/t) (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter
                  •  I'm no Luddite, I'm a software engineer who (6+ / 0-)

                    doesn't expect to remain employed until retirement age, especially since it keeps getting moved older.

                    Retraining is the cruelest myth of all. I'm already well educated, capable, and constantly learning new skills. There are less and less jobs available. You can look at all the graphs you like, but if there were a demand for more engineers, our salaries wouldn't be stagnant to sinking. Are we going to "retrain" all the over 40 engineers to be doctors and lawyers? We have already lost most of our ability to make things. We are quickly losing our ablitily to design things.

                    The word retraining always brings a picture to my mind. Imagine an office like the DMV. There are lots of people standing in line waiting to talk to clerks behind windows. The signs over the windows read, "Obsolete", "Outsourced", and "You want fries with that?"

                    Impeach or be impeached.

                    by Hens Teeth on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:42:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                      What is the alternative then?  Should we throw up trade barriers to prevent engineers from having to compete in the world?

                      If you think retraining is a bad idea, fine.  We can discuss the merits of that.

                      But a few things are obvious:  (1) Global trade has been increasing since the 1500s or earlier and will continue to increase (2)  While trade benefits the majority, some sectors and some individuals will be hurt by increased trade (3)  Progressives need to come up with an answer for the people who are hurt by trade.  I don't pretend to have all the answers; I'm happy to hear yours.

                      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                      by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:54:25 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There's trade. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        brentmack, Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

                        and there's trade.

                        There's also offshoring.

                        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                        by Salo on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:04:30 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Neo Liberal Economic policies (4+ / 0-)

                        have been in play in South America for years now. They are an unmitigated failure. These Milton Freidman economic policies have majorly disrupted otherwise relatively stabile agricultural economies, Chile, Argentina, etc. Also, they really arent free. Our farm subsidies keep our argricultural products artificially cheap so that farmers in other coutries can't earn a living because they're undercut by American corn, potatoes, you-name-it. In response, they flock into America looking for job that Americans "don't want."

                        It's a race to the bottom. Wages will go down. Standards of living will go down. The people pushing these policies are the Rich-getting Richer.

                        This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                        by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:50:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I agree with you about farm subsidies (0+ / 0-)

                          Its a distortion of the free market to force a cotton farmer in Mali to have to compete with some fat cat American farmer.  But bringing up the point on subsidies isn't an argument against free trade (at least in my view) its an argument for eliminating our farm subsidies.

                          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                          by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:51:46 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet you keep calling it 'free trade' (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

                            But bringing up the point on subsidies isn't an argument against free trade

                            There is nothing 'free' about it, and when the dust settles, very little is actually 'traded'.

                            Current 'free trade' agreements actually say little about trade, but they say a great deal about the mitigation of risk to global capital.

                            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                            by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:58:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Where is the competition (4+ / 0-)

                        What is the alternative then?  Should we throw up trade barriers to prevent engineers from having to compete in the world?

                        You make six dollars and hour, I make sixty, and you call this a 'competition'?

                        Global trade has been increasing since the 1500s or earlier and will continue to increase

                        If I am General Electric, and I offshore one of my business units to China, and then simply re-import the results of that business unit back to the US, please tell me what is being 'traded'?

                        Progressives need to come up with an answer for the people who are hurt by trade.  I don't pretend to have all the answers; I'm happy to hear yours.

                        You don't have any of the answers, yet you want to continue the course we're on.

                        Does not spell 'FOOL' in big capital letters to you?

                        If you are driving down the road, and you are lost, do you simply keep muttering 'we really need to find out where we are' to both yourself and everybody else in the car?

                        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                        by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:32:07 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  The alternative is sensible and fair trade (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        phonegery, uscitizenvoter

                        policiies. Our current policies are for the benefit of multi-national corporations. They give small and mid-sized businesses a disadvantage. Through our tax policy, we are paying corporations to give away our nation's industry and knowlege base.

                        Trade is I buy your oranges, and you buy my apples. Global trade is moving papers around so that no taxes are paid to any country, while getting as much benefit as possible from each country.

                        Where do you get the idea that our current system of trade is helping the majority? The middle class is shrinking, poverty is up, and the uber rich get richer. It's not some sectors, it's all sectors, except for CEOs. We now outsource engineering, accounting, medicine, teaching, and reporting.

                        Impeach or be impeached.

                        by Hens Teeth on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:05:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh and on Luddism (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry, I didn't mean that opposition to free trade was the same as being against technology.   I do think its similar to Luddism in that they are both ideologies that are doomed by the advances in the means of production.  Manufacturing by artisans was doomed in the face of machines and the assembly line, etc.   Similarly, organizing an economy around the nation state is doomed in the face of advances in transportation, information and communication.

                      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                      by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:06:53 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wait a damn minute (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        brentmack, Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

                        organizing an economy around the nation state is doomed in the face of advances in transportation, information and communication.

                        I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. The advantages, though, or using nation-states as intermediary vehicles for negotiating trade is that there are representatives calling the shots who are responsive to the needs of people. You have different regional interests which should be protected. I like to protect my local wildlife more than some guy in Peru wants to protect my wildlife, and vice versa. You can insert 'labor protections' for 'wildlife' or 'consumer safety' or whatever. The fact is... people don't give a flying fuck about people they can't see. That's the upside to regionalism. Protectionism isn't a terrible thing in and of itself.

                        This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                        by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:56:13 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'll grant you that concern (0+ / 0-)

                          Its certainly a lot easier for me to care about pollution in a river in my town than pollution in a river in China.  This is true and I'll grant you that this is a drawback of trade, but I think you are missing what I'm saying.  I'm not saying that everything about trade is good.  I'm just saying that overall it increased economic growth, and more to the point, increased trade is inevitable.

                          So we need to think of ways to deal with the problems associated with increased trade (including the one you hightlighted), but we railing agrainst free trade is beside the point.  Its here to stay.

                          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                          by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:42:48 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How big do you want to grow? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter, BlueGenes

                            I'm just saying that overall it increased economic growth

                            What is enough?

                            When the last icecap has melted, when the last drop of oil is gone, when the last glass of potable water is gone, will you then concede that 'growth' should not be the holy grail of all human endeavor?

                            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                            by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:01:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh - And On That Nation-State Thing (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        uscitizenvoter, BlueGenes

                        If you're really not hip on the idea of the nation-state, I don't know why you'd be wasting your time here - because I'll fight you to the death on that one.  I believe in the concept of being an American citizen, not whatever weak scheme you're peddling.

                        And if you think China's going to "fall in line" with that load of crap anytime soon, I've got a couple of bridges that I'd like to sell you.

                        Wake up and toughen up - your country's being fleeced!

                        •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

                          I wouldn't argue that we should get rid of the nation-state.  Far from it.  I would point out that economies are moving away from being organized around nation-states.  This isn't an argument, this is a fact of historical development (you can lament this, but you won't be able to do anything about it), and its essentially driven by technological change.

                          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                          by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:45:24 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Youre 'Inevitability' Meme is self refencial (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            uscitizenvoter

                            and without a more substantial argument to back it up, is without merit. You have been touting this inevitablity without providing any data to back it up. No wonder you're on the Hillhill bandwagon.

                            This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                            by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:58:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Read Ricardo's Theory Of Comparative Advantage (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        uscitizenvoter, BlueGenes

                        I do think its similar to Luddism in that they are both ideologies that are doomed by the advances in the means of production.

                        Especially the part where Ricardo contends that for the theory to hold, capital and the factors of production are immobile between countries.

                        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                        by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:34:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  So true (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter, BlueGenes

                      I am so sick of hearing the "just upgrade your skills" platitude that free trade supporting sheep, er I mean people, recite when faced with the spectre of outsourcing.  We all realize now that the jobs that are most in danger are high skill, high paying jobs.  Are they serious that a 45 year old with 10 years of software architecture experience should be expected to go back and get a PhD in Materials Engineering or something??  That is totally ridiculous.

                      It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the intelligent half of the country virulently against him.

                      by fizziks on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:01:34 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  What the fuck does free trade (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

                    Have to do with Luddism?

                    This is not the case of the horse and buggy going by the wayside because of the automobile. The jobs still exist, they are simply moved to a place where the labor is cheaper. Luddism is the opposition to technology, not the opposition to cheap offshored labor.

                    Your comparison of those opposing unrestricted 'free trade' to Luddites is ridiculous.

                    We also need to increase funding for the job retraining programs that Clinton started

                    Please -- If you're going to suggest that 'education is the answer' -- please also suggest what it is that everyone is going to retrain for which does not involve a hamburger patty, and can not be offshored.

                    Above all, this means government must guarantee health care and a secure retirement for all workers.

                    Where are you going to get the money to pay for all of this? You seem to be saying that you can ship high-wage jobs out of the country to low-wage countries, and replace those jobs with low-wage jobs in this country, and you are going to have a lot of money left in the tax base to pay for everybody to just 'retire with their guaranteed health care.

                    Once again, you make no sense.

                    People don't seem to care about facts

                    Obviously you don't either, because all you have brought with you are platitudes.

                    This is the NAFTA defcit. We also have more than 7 million illegal immigrants in the US, many of whom are here specifically because of NAFTA.

                    Here are what DOL says are the jobs of the future

                    Now possibly you can break free from the platitudes for just a moment and tell us all what high-wage high-skilled jobs Americans can train for which the other countries of the world cannot also train their own citizens to do at one sixth the wages?

                    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                    by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:24:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I didn't make myself clear (0+ / 0-)

                      I wouldn't argue that opposition to free trade is the same as Luddism.  I think the are similar in that they are both doomed ideologies, swimming against advances in the means of production.

                      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                      by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:36:16 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You keep using this term (3+ / 0-)

                        swimming against advances in the means of production

                        'Advances in the means of production'.

                        Call it what it is, third world slave labor.

                        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                        by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:43:49 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Call it what you want (0+ / 0-)

                          But I dont' think Chinese factory workers consider themselves slaves.

                          In any case, what I mean by advances in the means of production is ever-increasing advances in communication and transport.

                          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                          by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:49:12 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet I suspect that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            uscitizenvoter

                            But I dont' think Chinese factory workers consider themselves slaves

                            You have never actually ask any Chinese factory workers what they think.

                            When do you predict that sixty-five cents and hour will pay for that GAP sweater that Chinese worker is making?

                            When do you predict the price of that GAP sweater will be four dollars and fifty cents, a much better approximation of what it cost to make it and ship it back to the US for sale?

                            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                            by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:55:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No (0+ / 0-)

                            Do they consider themselves slaves?

                            Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                            by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:03:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  It isn't really "free trade" (0+ / 0-)

                    The problem with what you spout is the system of "free trade" in the United States isn't actually "free."  If it were free, it wouldn't require 1400 pages to determine what can and can't be traded without tariffs.  It also wouldn't set what governments can and can't do within their country.  Free trade has severely tied the hands of the Mexican governments (local and national) and the people and kept them from having any legal recourse when a corporation does something that would be illegal in the United States.  

                    I guess I could use this analogy as well...the people who pay for "free trade" are the ones who lose their jobs, and that is both the US and the country "free trade" is imposed on.  Our jobs are sent to another country (that is our payment) small farmers and businesses in the other country lose out because they can't compete with the lower costs that large businesses are capable of charging (their costs).  The we get more xenophobia because it forces people to migrate to find more work, some coming to the United States...everyone who doesn't matter loses in "free trade."

                     

          •  Imagine this... (37+ / 0-)

            "Democrats could lose the presidency because of trade...The American people feel there is no difference between a Democrat and Republican."

            No shit.  So what is the difference exactly?  We have the Republocrat Corporate Party?  So who cares anymore?

            This is getting really depressing.

            The time for Revolution is drawing nigh.

            With all his noble qualities...man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin--Darwin

            by MadScientist on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:51:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Democrats love these deals or DCCC? (13+ / 0-)

            If we don't have public financing of campaigns, we'll never wrest control from the corporations and uber-wealthy.

            Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

            by groggy on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:15:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Fagedaboudit! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925, NearlyNormal, uscitizenvoter

        Until then only "when they stand up will we stand down".

        Time to work on replacing the incumbents with OUR representatives.

        John Edwards - the repugs worst nightmare!!

        by Da Rock on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 04:42:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They stood up alright (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hens Teeth

        Unfortunately, a lot of them only did so to say "Fuck you!".

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

        by Dave925 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:17:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary supporters say they aren't too concerned (41+ / 0-)

      about the Glover Park Group of Clinton aides lobbying for the Colombian government for free trade agreements - or lobbying for Rupert Murdoch against the public's interest and against net neutrality!
      Since the Glover Park Group of Clinton aides isn't mentioned on TV - they're no problem - and I'm just a Hillary-hater. sigh

      Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

      by annefrank on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:47:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she gets picked, then the attacks start (13+ / 0-)

        They'll be touting a new "scandal" (contrived or not) every single day.

        Judicial Watch just filed an FOIA on Hillary's records for the failed Health Care project.

        And Vince Foster, like in some horror movie, is sure to return to haunt us all again. Forget the Clinton's enemies' 7 or 8 investigations finding nothing.

        Then there's her associates. Like Rudy's but not insane or sloppy.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:07:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If McCain keeps walking away (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dave925, jre2k8, kuvasz, annefrank

          from the neocons and zealots, he will gain his credibility back and become the Republican candidate.  (I heard he is #2 in the polls.)  If he wins, he will clean Hillary's clock.  Given a choice between a real Republican and a real Republican who is pretending to be a Democrat; the real Republican will win every time.  Hillary and Obama will be establishment Presidents promiting and protecting the status quo.  

          •  The only comfort to that is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dkmich, annefrank, Jim P

            A radical change of course is indicated if the nation is to survive, economic collapse is a real possibility.

            Promoting and protecting the status quo simply insures destruction is at hand. Sometimes I think that's what they want.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

            by Dave925 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:26:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, any (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hardleft, dkmich, jre2k8, annefrank, sable

            of the Republicans would benefit from a Democratic nominee who can't draw a clear distinction on trade, considered that most Republicans are opposed to our corporate trade policies.

            Kerry would be president today if he hadn't been an ardent free trader; he couldn't use trade against Bush in Ohio, and the rest is sad history.

          •  very good point! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dkmich

            Given a choice between a real Republican and a real Republican who is pretending to be a Democrat; the real Republican will win every time

            Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

            by annefrank on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:18:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yep! after Mondale endorsed Hillary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P

          there were links in a discussion forum at DesMoinesRegister about his daughter running on the beach with Bill - and Monica having a hissy fit because she was unable to see Bill because he was in a meeting with Mondale's daughter.
          I'd never heard that, but the sources certainly tried to place Bill in an affair with her.

          Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

          by annefrank on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:17:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Business as Usual (14+ / 0-)

      The Democrats, having discovered over a number of election cycles that they can't convince people to vote for them if they simply run as GOP Lite, have now become the Bait-and-Switch Party.

      It worked in 2006. But after two years of Congress switching, I doubt if the public will buy the baiting in 2008.

      This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

      by GreenSooner on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:10:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brentmack

      It appears that the Democratic Party is determined to keep their base from turning out in 2008.

      The 2nd Red String Conspiracy

      by gjohnsit on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:33:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Politics of Peru trade deal is bad for Dems (12+ / 0-)

    but do you have any analysis of the substance of the deal? Trade is not a bad thing. What will the effects be on US workers and jobs?

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:51:22 PM PST

    •  We've gone over this ad nauseum (88+ / 0-)

      I've been reporting on the substance of the deal ad nauseum for the last 5 months. In a nutshell, not a single major labor, human rights, anti-poverty, environmental, religious or consumer rights group supports the deal. Meanwhile, K Street lobbyists have been in the papers saying they have received assurances that the language supposedly protecting the environment and labor are designed to be unenforceable.

      •  When you look out at America . . . (52+ / 0-)

        from within the hallowed halls of Congress, all you can see is corporations and their wealthy owners.

        For as far as the eye can see, from coast to coast. Those are the real citizens of the nation. Not the humans, the walking herd of consumers that are the natural and rightful food of the corporations.

        But every couple of years, like a plague of locusts, come these horrid events called elections, when actual, walking, talking Fodder Units (no one calls them citizens except in public) must be catered to, coaxed to line up behind this or that incumbent or new FOCA (Friend of Corporate America) coming along.

        Money has effectively replaced voting. Lobbying has replaced debate and legislating. All a Congresscritter needs to do is show up late at night and vote according to instructions.

        The money is on the dresser.

        "The rule of the wise must be absolute . . . rulers ought not to be responsible to the unwise subjects." ~ Professor Leo Strauss

        by antifa on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:17:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The unenforceablitiy of labor and environment (31+ / 0-)

        provisions is a big issue with all our trade deals. Until they become enforceable, we shouldn't make any more deals. The deals we have should be amended or terminated to protect labor and the environment.

        "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:30:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If they were enforceable (8+ / 0-)

          They would produce actions that later on would likely be deemed to contravene the rules of the WTO.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:17:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and the problem with that is? n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kuvasz, esquimaux

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:25:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  WTO needs to go. Another Clinton deal. (8+ / 0-)

            Read Pallast on this one.  While we're at it, get rid of the fed. bank, too.  Another warning from the past ignored.

            •  How do we enforce trade deals then? (0+ / 0-)

              If you want to get rid if the WTO, then how do we enforce any of our trade deals?  Presumably you recognize that free trade is good for the United States over all.

              Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

              by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:38:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, but they don't realize that. (0+ / 0-)

                They instead buy into the populist demagoguery, like that offered by Kucinich, to claim we should drop out of NAFTA and the WTO, notwithstanding that this would make us the greatest international pariah state in the world, and have a devastating effect on our trade position and economy.

                The thing is is osunds so appealing, if you don't actually think about it. That jingoistic, xenophobic bone -- there are plenty of Democrats who have an overgrown bone.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:24:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Careful (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  uscitizenvoter

                  There are plenty of good reasons not to buy into free-trade-is-imminent-and-good sales pitch.
                  Like this for instance. If free trdae comes at the price of lowered safety,labor, and environmental standards, why on Earth would they be in our interests?

                  This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                  by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:15:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you talking about the United States? (0+ / 0-)

                    We have had lowered safety, labor and environmental standards in the United States since 2000, but that has everything to do with the takeover of our government by right-wing politicians.  Its not related to trade.  There have been a few high-profile cases where the WTO has struck down environmental regulations, but the vast majority are uncontroversial as trade barriers.  The real threat to our environment is our own political system.

                    Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                    by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:54:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Careful (0+ / 0-)

                  and to suggest that someone is xenophobic for feeling this way borders on trollish, not to mention fucking offensive.

                  This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                  by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:16:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You are just like the wingers... (0+ / 0-)

                  That you disagree with, you turn into a bogey man, e.g., xenophobic, demagoguery.  Pariah state?  So, we have to give away our jobs so that people will like us?  Maybe if we just quit bombing them that will be enough.  I hope your job goes first.  I'd love to see you in the unemployment line trying to get a paycheck to stave off foreclosure.  

              •  You assume they are being enforced now (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                uscitizenvoter

                Your assumption is incorrect.

                Presumably you recognize that free trade

                If I remember correctly, more than sixty percent of the exports from China to the US are exports by American companies operating in China.

                I ask again, what is being 'traded'?

                <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:40:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Free trade (0+ / 0-)

                is not good for the US overall.  It needs to be fair trade heavily regulated and nations need to remain sovereign.  If there is unfair competition, we don't need permission to close our markets or imposing tariffs to fund the remedy for the problems it causes.   You want to bring your product into a country? You play but its rules or stay home.  We can't even influence Democrats to be Democrats, and you want "world" organizations telling us what to do?  Hell no.  

                NAFTA on Steroids
                had accepted industry-favored amendments to GATS Article VI.4, known as the "necessity test."

                The necessity test requires nations to prove that their regulations — from pollution control to child labor laws — are not hidden impediments to trade. Industry wants the WTO to employ a necessity test similar to the one in the North America Free Trade Agreement which has worked to reverse local environmental rules. For example, Mexico has been forced to pay $17 million to an American corporation, Metalclad, for delaying the operation of the company’s toxic waste dump and processing plant. Local Mexican officials had attempted to block the plant’s operation on the grounds that it was built without a construction permit, and would not have received one, as the plant handling toxins was placed above the area’s drinking water supply.

                ==snip==

                The changes, as proposed, would slash regulatory controls over local businesses as well as foreign operators seeking entry to a market. For example, the State of California banned the gasoline additive MBTE because pollutes ground water. The Canadian maker of the additive has sued the United States under NAFTA on the grounds that banning the chemical was not the "least trade restrictive" choice for stopping ground water contamination. California could have, the Canadians argue, chosen to dig up and repair thousands of gas station holding tanks and established a giant new inspection system. While the cost of the alternative, running into billions of dollars, could effectively force California to back away from protecting its ground water, it would permit Canada to continue to export the contaminant.

      •  John Edwards on the impact on (43+ / 0-)

        Peru.  It is bad for working people in both countries.

        "The damage threatened by these NAFTA expansion agreements extends beyond the United States. Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That’s right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.

        "The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to displace millions of peasant farmers.  This would be a major human tragedy. We saw how NAFTA’s similar agriculture rules destroyed the livelihoods of 1.3 million peasant farmers with hunger increasing and desperate migration to the United States jumping 60 percent since NAFTA.

        "This is not just morally wrong, it is bad foreign policy. The United States needs to rebuild its friendships in Latin America, not push corporate trade agreements that undermine the livelihoods of the region’s poorest residents.

        "The presidents of Peru’s labor unions oppose this NAFTA expansion. So does Peru’s Archbishop Pedro Barreto, who calls the NAFTA expansion into Peru immoral – and a threat to the national security of his nation and ours.

        "For too long, Washington has been looking at every trade deal and asking one, and only one, question – is it good for corporate profits?  And they haven’t looked at all at the harm it will do to workers, their wages, or to the U.S. economy.

        Trade Reform, quoting John Edwards

        "The truth is the system in Washington is corrupt." John Edwards

        by TomP on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:35:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But if the peasants revolt, and the Chavez's of (12+ / 0-)

          the world support them we have an increase in Security Markets.

          We have, literally, a billion more 'terrorists' to fight.

          That's the plan, Stan. The 'War on Terror' is a war on human beings, plain and simple.

          It's designed to set up entire populations to take what we give them or become terrorists. "With Us or Against Us."

          Isn't it beautiful?

          Please, people, can we lose the 'War' frame for fighting terrorism. It's really, really dangerous.

          Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

          by k9disc on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:15:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is a War on People. (14+ / 0-)

            It's a way to spy on, lock up and torture or kill any human being who dares protest the status quo in any way other than the ones stamped with the official approval of the Powers that Be.

            During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

            by kyril on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:21:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  DING DING DING!!! n/t (6+ / 0-)

              Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

              by k9disc on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:25:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Let's see if we can hop off the war frame... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tecampbell, TomP, kyril

              I like to think of it as we're feeding our people to the economy.

              Is there a new kind of frame that conjures this kind of thing instead of the 'war frame'?

              And believe me I understand it's a war, but there's so much war these days that I don't think people can wrap their heads around it.

              Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

              by k9disc on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:27:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But they're all the same war (7+ / 0-)

                The Drug War, War on Terra, Iraq, Afghanistan...all the same. All part of the Global War on People.

                During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

                by kyril on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:52:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Selling peanut butter here. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dave925, TomP, kyril

                  If anyone didn't see 60 minutes expose on Doctors W/Out Borders and their efforts to feed starving populaces with fortified peanut butter, I would highly recommend it.

                  It reminded me of what progressivism is supposed to be about:  solutions.

                  I'm trying to think of something positive before bed.  

                  Lets hope the people win the war for once.

                  For every penny the West gives in aid to Africa a 'counterpenny' is given to tear these cultures apart through war.

                  by tecampbell on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:26:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I know, but that's the thing with framing... (7+ / 0-)

                  all of the 'known' wars send a muddy message. It's just too much to separate.

                  It's like that with lots of stuff.

                  Take "Corporate Power and Personhood" for instance. If we push a strategic initiative on this front, people's eyes glaze over.

                  Then the Cons of the DLC come in and say,"Why are you against Business?" and the glaze eyed masses nod their heads.

                  But, if we take Rockridge's advice and talk about "Healthy Food" and "Clean Elections" the "Common Good" and "Common Wealth" and "Human Dignity" we step outside of that business frame and point the interrogation light on "Corporate Power and Personhood", all the while not even mentioning "Corporate Power and Personhood".

                  I'm a dog trainer, and I do positive training. My whole goal is to get the dog to think that they're manipulating me. Their behavior affects the consequence. I make it their decision by limiting their access to other decisions. I plan the choices carefully.

                  We were conducting seminars in Europe earlier this year, and while in Poland, it hit me: American Capitalism is positive dog training. Americans believe their free. The market is free. The government is coercive So nothing we say about 'Corporations stealing their freedom' can sink in, because everybody knows that the government is the oppressor. We've been conditioned, operantly and classically, to this understanding.

                  It's a square peg in a round hole to say that we must depend on government to help us.

                  I believe that there's a classically conditioned response that has to be addressed first, just as there is a classically conditioned response to be addressed first in dog aggression.

                  This is going to get weird, and I apologize, but it's a stream of consciousness that is important to me...

                  Dogs, most of the time are aggressive with other dogs because they're scared. They're scared, so they growl. Growling works, so they go back to the behavior because it works. When it doesn't work, and the other dog gets too close they bite, starting a fight. The fight proves that the dog should be scared. So now the dog growls harder and earlier, while the dog is farther away.

                  After a few years of this; fear, fighting and handler correction, there is a classically conditioned response : dog=fear/pain.

                  Literally, the appearance of a dog creates the physiological response of fight or flight: increased heart rate, pilloric reflex, adrenaline rush.

                  A dog cannot make decisions that do not have to do with fight or flight because of this physiological state.

                  What must happen is counter conditioning. We do this most often with food. We try to change the 'frame' from dog=fear/pain to dog=food/satisfaction.

                  Once the physiological state has been changed, then we can begin to address the operant end, the end that deals with behavior. We can get behaviors that don't fit within the fight or flight physiology. We can get reasoned, calm decision making.

                  When dog=food/satisfaction, we can address the problem behavior in a logical manner.

                  How does this relate to what we were initially talking about, the 'War' frame?

                  I think what we need is a change from fear/pain in order to get different parts of the mind working; we need to change the physiological state.

                  If we have people thinking about things that don't raise their hackles, that don't raise the specter of war, death and killing, then we can get them to follow the logic and change their behavior.

                  I hope some of this makes sense to you, it sure does to me.

                  In fact, I think that feeding our people to the economy is still too harsh and fear based language.

                  After writing this, I think that the whole idea of framing has a lot to do with classically conditioned behavior. Government=bad. Freemarkets=democracy. I think that is extremely interesting.

                  So where do we go with this, I don't know. But I don't think that another war frame will fix the problem.

                  Any thoughts?

                  Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

                  by k9disc on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:26:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Brilliantly Put (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TomP, kyril

                    and no, i don't where to go from this. I'm not sure how to change the physiological response first, but when people are open to a new message, it should be that goernments are regretably neccessary. Indulge me by reading my comment here for a basic rundown of the re-framing of government message. I'd be interested to know what you think.

                    This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

                    by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:31:02 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Responsibility of government is to people (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlueGenes

                      Responsibility of private enterprise is to profit.

                      When we talk of vital services, we are talking about things that are vital to People - People need them to survive. Taking profit off the top of vital services means that people get less of these vital services.

                      Some things are more important than profit, and People are some of those things.

                      Government should protect and serve the people before it protects and serves profit.

                      It's simple... really.
                      I think it's high time that we start protecting ourselves and taking care of ourselves and that means we have to protect and take care of our government.

                      Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

                      by k9disc on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:53:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Definition of Terrorism: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dave925, Hens Teeth, TomP

              Challenging the status quo.

              "The truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?" ---"V"--- Prouder every day to be a FORMER Democrat.

              by asskicking annie on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:16:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm curious about the politics (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nina Katarina, groggy, Dave925, kyril

        Is this part of some geopolitical manuevering to outflank Chavez in South America -- to provide an alternative vision for how indigenous peoples or other workers in South America might find themselves in a more prosperous country with better opportunities? That this is more about foreign policy than trade policy?

        Just a thought. Anyone know if such considerations have played a big role here?

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:21:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Given BushCo's track record, I doubt it (6+ / 0-)

          to provide an alternative vision for how indigenous peoples or other workers in South America might find themselves in a more prosperous country with better opportunities?

          LOL?  Bush caring about little people?

          Come on FischFry, you're a striking comedy writer, right?

          Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

          by groggy on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:44:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Somethng similar (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xaxado, BlueGenes

          The backlash against neoliberal economics is in full swing in Latin America.  Two major economic blocs dedicated to independent economic policy have emerged, the Mercosur bloc (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) and the ALBA bloc (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia).  The appeal of these independent economic and financial initiatives is growing rapidly, as projects like "the Bank of the South" put meat on the bones of these blocs.  This is why we are seeing the rush to implement "free trade" deals with Panama, Peru and Colombia, as those are the largest economies in Latin America that haven't entered into one of the anti-neoliberal economic alliances.

          So yes, in that respect this is at least as much about foreign policy as it is about trade policy.  Where you are dead wrong, and that should be obvious on the face of it, is in this:  "to provide an alternative vision for how indigenous peoples or other workers in South America might find themselves in a more prosperous country with better opportunities".  As if Bushco, corporate America and international neoliberalism cold give two shits about prosperity for indigenous people and other working class Latin Americans.  Where is the example of the giant economic interests ever havbing seen the poor of Latin America as anything other than a vast reasource to be exploited and sucked dry?  Show me an example of Bushco actually giving a shit about indigenous peoples and other workers.  Even to write it is to ROFL.

          •  You completely misunderstand (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't say that Bush & Co. care about some mestizo in Peru. I was talking about how this would be presented there, as an alternative to what Chavez is pushing.

            As for Mercosur, it's odd to here you describe that as an antineoliberal alliance. I think Mercosur's history is very much out of the neoliberal thinking, just within the South American context, to put them on a more equal footing with the U.S.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:37:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  "Free trade" is not free for real people (6+ / 0-)

      Free trade is about removing obstacles for corporate interests to exploit new markets at a higher profit by erasing or harmonizing existing laws (not just trade tarrifs). That could mean that a corporation who blows off mountaintops in the US would gain the same right elsewhere, for example.  It's about removing government controls and oversight and letting "market forces" define by the powerful do their magic.

      It's been tried before in South America, by gun point and by imposing American backed puppet regimes, and it failed miserably. Poverty worsened tremendously, social benefits were removed, there a was a loss of worker rights, private land ownership was taken away, privatization of previously held commonly held assets occured with no benefit to the people. A very rich class appeared over night with a facade of wealthy downtowns having nice corporate headquarters and shopping malls while millions starved to death and were imposed a weakened dollar cost of an enormous societal debt that appeared when their governments' sources of income were removed and its coffers stripped. Some countries were bankrupted and privatization accelerated. It took a real social revolution to change things.

      South America is moving towards Democratic Socialism (democracies with the interests of everyone in mind) now and it needs to stay on that track. They are moving that way ahead of us and should be encouraged. As for you and me, who really cares if "free trade" gives us cheaper things and richer corporations?

      When it becomes the norm for corporations to be able to exploit everywhere (circumvent social interests by removing oversight)in the world, they will expect the same at home (market forces argument). Signing on to that is creating a very powerful downward force at home (the famous downward spiral). That is certainly already evident now. Forget what our narrow indirect benefits would be. They are quite small when one considers the erosion of control we lose over corporations.

    •  How much substance do we need? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanetT in MD, Hens Teeth

      It does not allow private parties to bring cases for violation of the language on labor standards in the treaty.

      Which, as I diaried on Sunday, is necessary, or else the labor standards are a dead letter.

      There were high hopes that the strong labor standards of the US-Jordan FTA would raise the bar, but lacking an effective enforcement mechanism, the result has been, as documented by the the National Labor Committee (link in diary above):

         In the Western factory, which was producing for Wal-Mart, four young women, including a 16-year old girl, were raped by plant managers. Despite being forced to work 109 hours a week, including 20-hour shifts, the workers received no wages for six months. Workers who fell asleep from exhaustion were struck with a ruler to wake them up.

         At the Al Shahaed factory, also producing for Wal-Mart, there were 24, 38 and even 72-hour shifts. The workers were paid an average wage of two cents an hour. Workers were slapped, kicked, punched and hit with sticks and belts.

         In a factory called Al Safa, which was sewing garments for Gloria Vanderbilt, a young woman hung herself after being raped by a manager.

         All across Jordan, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers, mostly from Bangladesh, China, India and Sri Lanka, are routinely forced to work 100-plus hours a week while being cheated of upwards of half the wages legally owed them. Any worker asking for their proper wages can be imprisoned.

         Factory bathrooms lack toilet paper, soap and towels. Dorm conditions are primitive, often lacking running water three or four days a week. Any worker speaking one word of truth about the abusive factory conditions will be attacked and forcibly deported without any of the back wages due them.

         Jordan's apparel exports to the U.S. are up 2000 percent between 2000 and 2005, reaching $1.1 billion, and these garments enter the U.S. duty-free. (Garments from Jordan go to Europe as well as the U.S.)

      SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

      by BruceMcF on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:16:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Love Rangel but, (19+ / 0-)

    he always lets us down on trade. This deal sounds awful and I'll be furious if it passes. It's nice to see guys like Mike Michaud say it like it is.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -8.25, -7.54

    by dem4evr on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:56:35 PM PST

  •  A serious question. (7+ / 0-)

    Does anyone know of any evidence that those Public Citizen actions and others like them are effective? I do so many of them every week, but I wonder if anyone pays attention to them.

    Anyone who has inside information - it sure would be helpful!

    The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

    by vox humana on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:59:30 PM PST

  •  I am so surprised that people here still (40+ / 0-)

    do not understand how bad "Free Trade" has been for Latin America.

    I cannot linger tonight..but this needs to be understood.

    More on this later..

    •  I look forward to your more ... (20+ / 0-)

      in the meantime, let me say once again: Buy and read "The Shock Doctrine." Central and South America have been our testing labs for too long. We are not helping them, either.

      "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

      by JuliaAnn on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:30:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? Let's look at Mexico. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Utahrd

      I'd love to see some numbers, especially regarding Mexico, with which we have the closest trade relationships.  As for some facts I got from the Mexico Wikipedia page:  GDP annual average growth for the period of 1995–2002 was 5.1%.    According to the director for Mexico of the World Bank, the population in extreme poverty has decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas from 2000-2004.

      In the 70s and 80s the Mexican economy was terrible.  Since 1994 the Mexican economy has done much better AND  overall growth has led to an overall reduction in poverty, although obviously there are still millions of poor in Mexico.  Does the turnaround in the Mexican economy in the mid-90s mean that free trade caused the growth?  No, but it certainly makes your claim that Mexico has done poorly under free trade look foolish.

      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

      by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:32:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with NAFTA deals . . . (55+ / 0-)

    . . . is that it turns out they really do undermine American working people.

    And the Peru deal is just more of the same.

    Back in the day, I supported Bill Clinton on NAFTA because he was the President, and I really didn't think through the deal.  But I was wrong.  Completely wrong.

    Today, we all know and can measure the results of NAFTA:  American middle class jobs fleeing abroad as quickly as our wealthy masters can bank those tax cuts to purchase business infrastructure abroad.  There's no guesswork in the results -- NAFTA has demonstrated its negative effects on jobs.

    But the problem is even more pernicious than "mere" job losses (as if that isn't bad enough).

    No, the more pernicious problem is that these trade deals actually shrink the middle class, creating even wider and deeper income inequalities between the middle class and our wealthy robber baron masters.

    So, these bad trade deals are transforming America into the America pre-FDR.  Which is why I keep searching for the next Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Furthermore, unions become weaker, and the feedback loop caused by job loss cannot be stemmed.  And unions are the historical handmaidens in creating the American middle class.

    The answer is to negotiate our way out of these extremely negative NAFTA-style deals we've talked ourselves into.  And certainly not pass more of these utterly destructive trade deals like the pending Peru deal.  What in the name of god are Democrats thinking about?

    Keep in mind -- the Republicans love these deals because they create wealth in the hands of the uber-wealthy.  We can never count on the Rs to do the right thing.

    But we do have to educate our Democratic legislators -- and especially our "Bourbon" Democratic legislators (like Clinton) -- so we don't continue to screw the middle class working folks.

  •  Working-class turning to Ron Paul... (6+ / 0-)

    ...not interested in gay rights etc. they are interested in jobs and hope and opportunity.

  •  I just don't get it.......... (17+ / 0-)

    with Rangel and Hoyer. These 2 aren't real Dems in my eyes......real Dems always stood for the working people, the poor and the middle class.

    That trade deal is not good for anybody but the corporations.  Peruvians will eventually suffer under this trade agreement, just like our workers willface more job losses....outsourcing to South America.

    Rangel, Hoyer, Pelosi, Reid and a few others really suck in my book.  Vote them out next time they run for re-election.  Find some good primary challengers to go against those traitors.

    If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

    by Mz Kleen on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 07:56:32 PM PST

  •  Bunch of damn (12+ / 0-)

    Corpocrats!  Both parties are still in the pockets of corporations on the leadership levels, and it is sickening that Democrats continue to support this garbage.  Do they really care about the American worker or just about their damn reelections....stuff like this really chaps my ass.

    2006: The year the Donkey went Rocky on the Pachyderm

    by marcvstraianvs on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:01:28 PM PST

  •  The Dems don't give a rat's ass (15+ / 0-)

    what "the people" want.  "The people" don't stuff their pockets with cash the way the corporations do.  They're bought and paid for whores just like the Repubs.

    If the President thinks we're going to jump every time he asks us to, he's wrong! First we're going to ask him "How high, sir?"-Democratic leaders.

    by jazzmaniac on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:25:16 PM PST

  •  Quick question... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, annefrank, greenearth, lenzy1000

    Can anyone recommend and/or provide a useful link to a description of the "Wall Street wing" (former Clinton officials now corporate lobbyists) described by the diarist?

    Not challenging the point made, just curious to find a quick reference that might point out who and where the particular players are...  Thanks.

  •  free trade has been a disaster for this party (18+ / 0-)

    When we embraced free trade, the way it's been packaged by lobbyists, we lost so many working class voters. Without any economically populist party, they decided to go with the party that was the most socially populist. Hence the Republican efforts to exploit anti-gay or anti-Mexican sentiment.

    Democrats don't need to return to the days of protectionism. But if we stand up for working people, let alone the environment, we will win a lot of voters back.

    At this point, fair trade is positioned outside both political parties -- among independents. We ought to embrace it. It's politically, economically, and morally intelligent.

    Hillary is running against Bush. Compared to Bush, we all look like Gandhi. We should expect more than just "not Bush".

    by danthrax on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:28:59 PM PST

    •  like your tag line, fits with this story well (7+ / 0-)

      UP News - News from the people, not corporations UP News

      by wade norris on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:44:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I actually think we need some protectionism... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Salo, esquimaux, Hens Teeth, BlueGenes

      How do you compete with Chinese Labor?

      Isn't placing quality controls on imports protectionism?

      Isn't subsidizing industry protectionism?

      Isn't public bailouts protectionism?

      The only thing is that it's not protecting the right things.

      Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

      by k9disc on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:22:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is a tricky problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        k9disc, Salo

        If you think the credit markets are rough right now, see what happens when the flow of funds from China halts.  It would be brutal.  Real estate markets can and have totally frozen- in Tokyo, after their bubble burst, real estate fell by about 90%.

        We are basically in a suicide pact with China, and I don't see an easy way to void it.

        NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed, but by lawful judgment of his Peers

        by aztecraingod on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:22:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A Suicide Pact (0+ / 0-)

          And how exactly did we get into that suicide pact?

          (crickets)

          Free Trade Agreements!!

          So then, does it make sense to get ourselves into more free trade agreements when we can already see how well they work out for us?

          This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

          by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:14:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, but what exactly? (0+ / 0-)

      I am a strong supporter of free trade, and I think it would be good to add environmental and labor provisions to our trade deals, but I am dubious that these can be terribly effective, at least in developing countries (although I grant that they are better than nothing).  The problem is that most developing countries don't have the strong central government, regulatory bureaucracy and judiciary that is required to enforce these types of provisions.  No?

      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

      by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How are the Republicans going to vote? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, annefrank, greenearth

    How much arm-twisting will Bush do.

    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Edwards '08

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:36:02 PM PST

  •  My God..the list of "must go" Democratics (15+ / 0-)

    is almost as long as the "must go" GOP...are we the only ones tired of this double speak, double intent and "all for me, screw you, I got mine"  attitude from persons who are sworn to protect the Constitution and the Sovereignty of this country..are we the only ones who see the danger in this New World Order...? I feel more and more like I am waking up in some foriegn country in another time

    •  Nader was right...admit it and you feel better (12+ / 0-)

      ...it has always been about jobs and the rotten trade agreements and the shifting of wealth away from the middle classes by globalist economic policy. In short equality of opportunity and a democratic system to distribute the product of progress...LIBERALISM! Theses people now running the country have betrayed working Americans...about eight-five percent of our population is being flushed to enrich about three to five percent and their lackeys and the stupid pricks don't understand without a strong America supported the middle class to protect them and their intrests they are doomed...the current ruling class is certifiably insane.  

      The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

      by Bobjack23 on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:58:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  honest question (7+ / 0-)

      how do we do that?  If we continue down the road of 'any dem is better than any republican' and we're in a two party system?  And in general, the dems are beter than the republicans, but the line is getting oh-so blurred.  

      When I read stuff like this diary, I feel completely powerless.  All I have is about a hundred bucks a month to donate and my vote.  How can we change anything?  

  •  Once again its all about the money (7+ / 0-)

    "The politics really are unfathomable," unless you understand who paid for these politicians.  Understanding that, well then its all perfectly fathonable!

  •  Signed, sent. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, AbsurdEyes, annefrank, tecampbell, kyril

    Thanks, david.

    War is outdated. Dalai Lama

    by x on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:55:33 PM PST

  •  My letter to Congress (8+ / 0-)

    sent from the "this tool from Public Citizen" link in the diary.

    I'm writing to urge you to publicly oppose the U.S-Peru NAFTA expansion.

    The American people are already sick enough of our political class stabbing us in the back. Democrats should be taking care of us, and not in the gangland sense of the phrase.

    Democrats have not been. I've been voting straight-ticket Democratic for 4 decades. It now seems the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Give me reasons to keep voting Democratic. Protect the people, defend the Constitution.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:59:41 PM PST

  •  Just goes to show... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, xynz, tecampbell, Sagebrush Bob, kyril

    ...who the Dem leaders think their real constituents are, as I pointed out here in a diary responding to one of David's prior diaries.

    -7.75, -7.64 www.politicalcompass.org "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

    by scorponic on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:17:18 PM PST

  •  What is Rangel thinking? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, tecampbell, kyril, invisiblewoman

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:19:31 PM PST

  •  I'd like to hear from the UAW (6+ / 0-)

    on there thoughts on Democratic presidential candidates who support the extension of NAFTA or won't take a stand.

    Will the UAW stand up?

    Will the UAW support the candidate who is against the Peru FTA?

  •  the link was interesting (5+ / 0-)

    It showed there is a lot of republican support to end NAFTA-like agreements too.  

    Making a stand on this would bring a lot of republicans-who-should-be-democrats back into the democratic fold.  IOW if the dems become more liberal they'd attract more republicans.  Nuts but true, apparently.  

  •  You're going to have to start marketing (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xynz, uscitizenvoter, kyril, numen, junta0201

    These diaries better David.

    May I suggest that you change the title to "Larry Craig Faces Revolt Over Free Trade In Advance Of Vote", and just change every thing to read different -- as an example -- might I suggest "Larry Craig is still very much dominated by the Wall Street wing".

    You'll get 1100+ comments and this thing'll bask in the rarified air of the rec list for days.

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:57:55 PM PST

  •  The Job Undone (5+ / 0-)

    The problem is that we are in that intermediate period where the job of cleaning out Congress isn't done and there are still a lot of Democrats there who haven't felt the broom yet. We have to get rid of them, and the best way to do that is to challenge them in the next Democratic primary.

    Here's more:

    Framed: International Trade Agreements

    Framed: White Collar Unemployment

    House Races

    Senate Races

    Contenders Registry

  •  Ick. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, junta0201

    Thanks for keeping us informed.

    I can't believe Obama is in support of this.  If he votes for it he's out, as far as I'm concerned.  I'll vote for Edwards or Dodd instead... if Dodd votes no, of course.

    (feels powerless)

    For every penny the West gives in aid to Africa a 'counterpenny' is given to tear these cultures apart through war.

    by tecampbell on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:26:20 PM PST

  •  Your NAFTA history is way off. (6+ / 0-)

    "...when you consider that the same Democratic Party that was politically stung by NAFTA in 1994..."

    Republicans gaining Congress in 1994 had ZERO to do with NAFTA mainly because:

    1. Newt's Contract On American supported NAFTA and free trade.
    1. Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because they did not unite behind Clinton's health care plan and looked ineffective when America was ready for and wanted health care reform.
    1. Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because of several corruption issues involving top Democratic Congressional leadership.
    1. Clinton and Gore ran on passing NAFTA and won twice based on their support for NAFTA.
    •  Union turnout (12+ / 0-)

      Union turnout was way down in 1994. It wasn't that they voted for the GOP - it was that the Dems' base was demoralized and didn't turn out.

      •  Nope that's not it...% of union votes Republican. (0+ / 0-)

        A very large percentage of union members vote Republicans, the "Reagan Republicans" define this group.

        So union turnout does not particularly favor Democrats.

        Reasons for Democratic Congress loss was the corruption issues (as it was for Republicans in 2004) and its ineffectiveness in supporting Clinton.

        Plus Newt had a strategy of making government not work and he had a good PR campaign with "Contract" when Congressional Democratic leadership was going to jail.

        That Clinton/Gore won reelection supporting NAFTA pretty much is the nail in the coffin of the NAFTA theory.

        Most of the "issue" with NAFTA is really anti-immigrant sentiment...them "damn furriners" are getting our jobs kind of thing.

        •  Dem turnout '94 dropped sharply South, low income (0+ / 0-)

          There are many who would certainly note that income is also a proxy for working class issues, which often is wrongly assumed to be uniquely identified with union voters.

          As a person who actively fought the horrid and fraudulent NAFTA agreement at the time BOTH for my local Southern workers  AND in direct solidarity with both Mexican autonomous unions and non-governmental organization, it was not merely Perot-ian "Sucking Sounders" who opposed this ridiculous mess.

          Back then, we actually were conversationally familiar with which companies in our Southern states were already threatening to leave to Mexico -- including famously the Schlage Lock company.

          By the way, Curtis Gans headed up the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

          Also, it is quite interesting that you dispute a monocausal analysis of Democratic drop in turnout due to NAFTA -- but then heartily endorse the monocausal "corruption" argument, similarly without recourse to evidence.

          All elections are multi-causal, but it is not impossible to tease out multiple proxy issues which affect voting subsets.

          1994 Congressional Elections: An Analysis
          Curtis Gans

          The Republican Party won a majority of the votes cast for Congress for the first time since 1946 in 1994, which featured only the second significant increase in mid-term turnout in a quarter century.

          In all, 75,114,722 eligible Americans voted in the 1994 election, a 38.8% turnout -- up 2.3 percentage points from 1990. An estimated 108,000,000 eligible Americans did not vote and turnout was more than 20% lower than in the 1960s.

          These findings are from a report on the 1994 mid-term election by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE), a non-partisan, non-profit research organization. This study was based on the final and official registration and turnout statistics from 50 states and the District of Columbia and an analysis of the U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey report on the 1994 election.

          Among the principal findings of the Committee's study were:

             * The Republicans garnered 19.0% of the eligible vote for Congress, exceeding the Democrats (16.6%) for the first time since 1946.
             * The GOP bested the Democrats in the vote for Congress (17.1% versus 13.5%) in the South and gained a majority of House seats in the region, both for the first time since Reconstruction.
             * Overall turnout was up in every region in the nation except New England and the farm states. It was fueled by major surges in turnout in Tennessee and Virginia and substantial turnout increases in many of the most populous states, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. Turnout declined in several states with tight or highly publicized races, including: Alabama, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Vermont.
             * Republican turnout was up in every region of the country, while Democratic turnout was down in every region of the country except the Middle Atlantic States and the Far West, where the party recorded exceedingly modest gains.
             * A modest increase in registration, fueled by a 36% increase in registration of those affiliated with neither major party. Registration for both Democratic and Republican parties was down.

          Census Bureau Data

          The Committee's analysis of the Census Bureau's survey showed:

             * A 21% drop in the reported participation rates of those with incomes of $15,000 and lower (from a 34.3% rate in 1990 to a 27.1% rate in 1994).
             * A 33% increase in the share of the vote cast by those whose incomes were $50,000 and over (from 23.7% of the voting electorate in 1990 to 31.5% in 1994).
             * A modest decline in the reported participation rates of blacks -- down two percentage points from 39.2 in 1990 to 37.0 in 1994. This decline, however, was composed of surges in some individual states and declines in others.
             * A return to very low levels of reported partici¨ pation rates of young citizens aged 18-24. After a 25% surge in the 1992 Presidential elections, this year's level of reported 18-24 participation was the lowest (at a reported 20% but likely at least two percentage points lower due to over-reporting) since the Census has been conducting these surveys. The rate of participation of first time youth voters (18-19 years old) dropped from a reported 17.3% in 1990 to 14.5% in 1994.
             * A minor increase (0.3 percentage points) in the male share of the vote and a similar decrease in the female share, neither proving nor disproving the idea of angry males fueling the 1994 election.

          Realignment in the South

          While the election was a resounding victory for the Republicans -- no incumbent Republican lost, its lasting effect may well be limited to the South, where a realignment toward the GOP seems to be in place for at least a generation.

          This election was the first, but surely not the last, in which the GOP won a majority of the votes for Congress and a majority of House seats. It was an accident awaiting an unpopular (in the region) Democratic President to happen. The region as a whole is more conservative than the nation, and the GOP is the more conservative party.

          While the Democrats still enjoy a 37.8% to 22.4 registration advantage in the South, that registration advantage has slipped from a 53.8% to 11.8% edge which existed in 1962. And it is likely to slip even further as being a Republican in fact as well as in voting behavior becomes more respectable in the region and as the impact of the new motor voter law is felt in the region whose restrictive registration laws the new legislation will do most to repair.

          Despite the lingering Democratic registration advantage in the region, Southerners have been more likely to vote for the GOP in Presidential elections since the late 1960s and the number of Democratic statewide office-holders has dwindled.

          The trend in the South is unmistakable. Since 1970, after the full impact of the Voting Rights Act was felt, the Republicans have reversed what was a 18.5% to 10.0% deficit in House votes into the 17.1% to 13.5% majority it enjoyed in the 1994 election.

          That trend is likely to continue for at least a generation. There will likely be further defections of Democratic office-holders to the GOP and more GOP victories in marginal districts. The Democrats went into the 1994 election with an 8-5 margin of House seats. It would not surprise me if the GOP achieved that margin in the next two election cycles.

          No Realignment Elsewhere

          No similar realignment could be seen nationally in the 1994 vote. While the Republicans won the House vote in every region except New England, their biggest margins over the Democrats were in the farm belt of the Midwest (9.1 percentage points), the Rocky Mountain States (8.8), the South (7.5) and the Southwest (5.3), all (save the South) previously GOP strongholds. Margins in other regions were 2.5 percentage points or lower.

          No party which can only get 19% of the vote can claim a national mandate. The fact that there was a slight rise in the vote indicates that a portion of the electorate was activated in the 1994 election, but the size of the rise and the level of overall GOP support indicates that this was more of a negative mandate against the Democrats rather than a positive mandate for the Republicans.

          Democratic Disarray

          Nothing in this election can be comforting to the Democrats. Not only did they lose their majorities in both Houses of Congress, they also lost their voting power relative to Republicans in every region of the country -- including the regions which they won -- New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Perhaps of equal import, three groups key to their 1992 electoral success -- the poor, the blacks and young citizens -- all reported lower participation. In the case of both the poor (those with incomes under $15,000) and first time voters (those aged 18-19), the decline was particularly sharp.

          The Democrats face a very difficult immediate future. They are operating under a number of constraints which make victory in 1996 very problematic. They are unlikely to win any state in the South, save perhaps Arkansas. Their hands will be tied by budget constraints on any new substantive initiatives. And they must fashion an electoral strategy to win in New England, the Middle Atlantic states, the Rust Belt and the Far West, with key core constituencies necessary for that victory in an apparent state of demobilization.

          The Democratic disarray is a deserved product of two major missteps -- the failure in 1994 to offer any theme or message around which to rally and the failure over a 25-year period to fashion an approach uniting the middle and underclass wings of the party. They seem no closer to such a message now.

          The only comfort the Democrats can draw is that their national decline in turnout was only 1.26 percentage points and that the Presidential electorate (an election in which citizens vote at a 10-15 point higher rate than in mid-term elections) is likely to be far less skewed toward high income brackets.

          Future Voter Turnout

          Two factors point to increased turnout: the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act (the so-called motor voter law), which is likely to substantially increase registration and thus those who have the potential to vote -- particularly in the South -- and the increasing likelihood of credible candidates beyond the two major parties.

          Factors pointing to the potential of decreased turnout include: the general demobilization of the electorate over the last three decades; the decreased allegiance to and mobilizing ability of either major political party; the hope factor -- the lack of feeling that the results of the 1996 election will produce significant beneficial changes in the lives of most Americans; and the continuing conduct of campaigns at the most negative and destructive levels.

             What we are seeing is dealignment rather than realignment -- a turning away from both major political parties.

          Dealignment and Democratic Decay

          Three pieces of information from this study stand out as a harbingers of future politics:

             * The decline in registration for both major parties and the rise in registration for independents: Since 1966 -- the high point in both turnout and registration in mid-term elections since women were given the franchise in 1920 -- Democratic registration (in the District of Columbia and the 26 states which registered by party) has declined steadily from a 1966 high of 44.2% to a 1994 low of 31.5%. Republican registration has declined slightly from 25.0% in 1966 to 22.6% in 1994. And independent registration (for other parties or unaffiliated) has increased from 3.9% in 1966 to 12.4%1 in 1994.
             * The decline in voter participation by young voters: With the single exception of the 1992 election, the turnout of young people (aged 18-24) and first-time voters (aged 18-19) has been declining steadily in both Presidential and mid-term elections since 18-to-19-year-olds were given the franchise in 1972. In the 1994 election, the reported turnout level of 18-19 year-olds was 14.5%, with actual turnout levels likely at least two percentage points lower than that. Reported turnout for all other age levels up to age 45 also declined. In the 1994 election, there were significant increases in turnout, based on age, only for the age group 75 years-old and over.
             * Continuing low voter turnout: Despite a significant partisan change in the results of the election, turnout was up only modestly (2.3 percentage points) and remains at a level more than 20% lower than it was in the 1960s.

          What we are seeing is dealignment rather than realignment -- a turning away from both major political parties. And despite the increases in turnout in both the 1992 Presidential election and the 1994 midterm, the future trend is toward disengagement and non-participation. The 1994 election can properly be seen as similar to the elections of 1966, 1974, 1980 and 1992 -- as rejections of the party in power, but without offering much hope for long term citizen re-engagement in the future.

          Given two factors -- the growing disaffection from both major parties and nominating rules that will likely select the nominees of the two major parties by the end of March 1996 -- a serious independent or third party candidacy becomes an increasing possibility.

          Curtis Gans is director of The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington, D.C. For information, write to 421 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-3221.

    •  I agree that NAFTA was not the issue, but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, Salo, kyril

      the Republicans had been building the infrastructure for 1994 years before.  They had probably hoped to gain complete control in 1992, but Perot hurt them more then he helped them.  I'm still not sure if Perot was part of the plan or if he really hated GHWB that much.

      Nevertheless, they were stuck with Clinton so they used him and Hillary to rally support.  I honestly believe there was more Hillary bashing in the 90's then there is now when she is running for President.

      One way or the other, NAFTA cost Dems in key Congressional races votes over the years.  The Democratic Party ceases to be the party of workers when it supports these BS corporate trade deals.

      For every penny the West gives in aid to Africa a 'counterpenny' is given to tear these cultures apart through war.

      by tecampbell on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:18:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stand tough (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sable, kyril, numen

    Dems, these are the ones who won the majority, not house and Senate "leadership" who have proved "more of the same".

    http://blog.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:15:36 AM PST

  •  The Democrats have to take a stand here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    I'm a beleive in free trade but there should be no more done for the legacy of Bush.  He should have his Fast Track Authority stripped from him and Congress should take control until a new president comes into office.  The Democrats are really frustrating sometimes, they're stubbornly stupid politically.

    Build the Wilshire Subway!

    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:20:15 AM PST

  •  This is supposed to be a two-party system (5+ / 0-)

    It has to change. The Republican ideology has so fully infultrated the Democratic party that for all practical purposes, we no longer have a choice in the legislative agenda.

    I'm getting to the point of hating the Democrats. I hate them for seeping into the party like a cancer and usurping the liberal agenda.

    It's total B.S. and I am fucking pissed! I'm voting for None Of The Above.

    I know what GrannyDoc meant in her diary on Saturday. I'm at the point where I think I'd just rather let the system collapse and start over.

    Feinstein and Shumer just turned into colon cancer. Just add them to the list.

    I was happiest as a heathen.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:45:35 AM PST

  •  What's wrong with Unfair (aka Free) Trade (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, Dave925, jre2k8, kuvasz, wmacdona66

    "In the years since, I have written extensively on this issue. Labor arbitrage is not trade and does not meet the Ricardian conditions for comparative advantage upon which the case for free trade is based.

    Few economists have bothered to think about the issue of offshoring, preferring to dismiss concerns about it as manifestations of the old protectionist fallacy. They learned in graduate school that free trade is always mutually beneficial and ceased to think when they passed their exams. This is especially true of "free market economists" who believe that economic freedom, which they identify with the freedom of capital, is always good. Thus, most economists mistakenly believe that offshoring is protected under the authority of free trade doctrine.

    However, free trade doctrine is based on the assumption that domestic capital seeks its comparative advantage in its home economy, specializing where its comparative advantage is best and, thereby, increasing the general welfare in the home economy. David Ricardo, who explicated the case for free trade, rules out an economy's capital seeking absolute advantage abroad instead of comparative advantage at home."

    From: Cato, Trade, and Outsourcing

    Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

    by spencerh on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 02:46:38 AM PST

  •  How will Mark Penn's candidate vote? (5+ / 0-)

    Will she lead on this issue and vote early, or will she remain silent and cast a vote after the outcome has already been decided?

    Preserve the Constitution and Middle Class!

    by Opinionated Ed on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:00:31 AM PST

  •  The Dems (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, esquimaux, tarheelblue, xaxado

    are going out of there way to demonstrate that they are no better than the Rethugs.

    I am sorry, there is little difference between the parties (no, I am not a Naderite, but am beginning to believe he is right).

    PS - Steny Hoyer is a walking disaster.

    -6.5, -7.59. "We can't replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats", John Edwards, Oct 7, 2007

    by DrWolfy on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:19:37 AM PST

  •  It's time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, adigal

    for those calls/letters/emails. Without pressure, these folks seem unable to do the right thing.

    Feet. Meet fire.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 04:13:27 AM PST

  •  Please provide a link to the Hill article you (0+ / 0-)

    cite. Thanks

    "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill

    by Spud1 on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 04:24:27 AM PST

  •  Just how does this affect Paraguay?? (0+ / 0-)

    There has to be an angle there since bush is planning on escaping er - retiring - to his hacienda there.

    John Edwards - the repugs worst nightmare!!

    by Da Rock on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 04:50:11 AM PST

  •  oh my, the working class screwed again? (5+ / 0-)

    we really don't need the republicans' dicks up our asses when the millionaire democrats have their's nestled up ours.

    the best thing for america and its working class is for the democrats to lose the elections in 2008 so a crop of progressive democrats who care about the american working class can replace that greasy botox smiling whore to the wealthy pelosi and well-heeled DINO hoyer.

    nice work david, keep the pressure on those traitors to american workers.

    i am a democrat only because the party used to the best vehicle to improve the lives of workers but since that sex maniac clinton fucked us on NAFTA and welfare reform there's not much difference between the parties.

    its really not a surprize that the democratic leadership is pushing for a new NAFTA-type trade agreement because they are bought like whores to big business.

    bad trade agreements, useless national health care proposals that still allows the insurance companies and drug companies big profits, and we are supposed to be excited about the democrats? give me a break, these days even that nut case nader looks good.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 04:57:59 AM PST

  •  David, you've encapsulated the Democratic race (4+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    kuvasz, esquimaux, Tanya, FishOutofWater
    Hidden by:
    Ahianne, condoleaser

    spot on............

    "John Edwards (D-N.C.) has announced his opposition to the U.S.-Peru agreement".

    "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), however, has said he will support the deal".

    "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is undecided."

    Great diary, and so very timely.

    "The tide is with us, let's all stop rowing the other way."

    by NCCarboys on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:21:19 AM PST

  •  Shooting Yourself in the Foot... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldjohnbrown

    And, then complaining, when it hurts. Of all the stupid, moronic, idiotic, things to do. We can't get impeachment on the table, but expansion of NAFTA is a possibility. What's wrong with this picture? I am disgusted.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

    by SignalSuzie on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:37:40 AM PST

  •  It'll pass, as usual (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tanya, Hens Teeth

    This one will pass, as all the others that have come up for a vote have.  Enough money will be stuffed into enough pockets.  The only time I recall a "trade" win was in denying Clinton fast track.  

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

    by Paleo on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:51:46 AM PST

  •  Regardless of the merits, Dems should oppose this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, Tanya

    They need to demonstrate to their base supporters that they actually give a shit what they think. Other than S-CHIP they haven't done diddly in that regard.

    Democrat in Washington better step up to the plate soon and prove to the American people and rank and file Democrats why a third party is not necessary. Or there will be one.

    •  From your lips to gods ears (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      if only there was a viable third party we might actuall see some change for the better in this country. It is the only way the dems will feel any pressure to represent the people that elected them.

      To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

      by Tanya on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:16:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Revolt. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, Tanya, Hens Teeth

    Support John Edwards.

    This shit isn't "free trade."  It's labor arbitrage.  Working folks in Peru and in America will get shafted while the economic elites clean up.

    Same as it ever was.

    Fortunately, we do have a candidate who recognizes what this garbage really is.  Support him.

  •  more immigrants (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tanya, Hens Teeth

    congress should appropriate money right now for the big increase in illegal immigration this will cause, just like NAFTA did.

  •  Farmers to be screwed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, alizard, Hens Teeth

    Yay Edwards for recognizing the farmers!

    i already took Obama to task for his screwing the poor of Peru and how free trade devastates farmers in Peru:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Also, for all those who care about "local food" and specialty farmers who grow fruits and vegetables (as opposed to the "evil" farmers who grow commodity crops), the Peru FTA will put many of them out of business (asparagus/onion growers).

    Peru FTA to impact US vegetable growers

    Already, Del Monte and Green Giant have moved their operations from Washington state to Peru, as Peru has huge commerical industrial asparagus farms and canneries where they pay folks like 50 cents an hour.

    I thank John Edwards for his courageous stances.

    btw, you wanna know why Ron Paul can raise that money? because many of the family farmers i know, who hate free trade and what it has done to rural communities, see Paul as a savior, and the only one speaking truth to power. He is anti-Animal ID (the only candidate on both sides) as well as against the WTO and free trade agreements on sovereignty grounds. these are the same rural voters, however, who loved Paul Wellstone, love Lou Dobbs, and can be Democrats, but only if the party stands up for them. as of now, they think both parties are more alike than diff. and thus, the cult of Ron Paul...

  •  When John Edwards talks about "Corporate Dems" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nab, Hens Teeth

    This is what he is talking about.

    The JSamuel Irregular
    This is going to be an election, Tim, it's not going to be an auction. - JRE

    by jsamuel on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:30:15 AM PST

  •  No more trade deals should be done without (0+ / 0-)

    strong environmental protections and prohibitions against the use of "slave" labor in the countries.  

  •  Yet another reason to quit the Dems. (0+ / 0-)
  •  You mean this wing, now posing as "Green"? (0+ / 0-)

    Green agenda a hit for Corzine, but critics see red

    http://www.northjersey.com/...

  •  Once more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, Hens Teeth

    With feeling

    * [new] You are wrong. (none / 0)
    Manufacturing jobs are "low-wage" exactly and only because they can be shipped out of the country to places that have no protection for workers. They are not low-wage because they produce something of fundamentally lower value. Service jobs have higher wages exactly and only to the extent that some mixture of these factors applies:

    a. the services can't be offshored.
    
b. the services require significant specialized skills
    
c. the workers can organize to defend their wages and their working conditions

    The idea that "distribution" jobs pay well is comical, outside of a unionized environment. People working in packing and shipping departments make poverty wages.

    The drive to push "low-wage" manufacturing jobs out of the country results in one of the truly sick perversions of market-driven, global trade, namely, that it is never worth repairing anything. Why? Because, for an American consumer, the goods must either be:

    * repaired locally, by people who earn local wages

    or

    * repaired far away, by people making slave wages.

    But it's cheaper to ship/distribute a brand-new product made by a slave than it is either to hire an American to repair the broken item, or to ship the broken item "there-and-back" for repairs.

    Generally speaking, the fundamental justification for global trade -- natural advantage -- is moot, is in fact a joke. There are few natural advantages that apply to the manufacture of anything, since the manufacture of everything requires the bringing together of input resources from all over the place. Free trade is an absurd anachronism, carried over from a long-gone era, when the Earth's population was a tenth what it is now, when transnational supercorps were almost unheard-of, and when 90% of all people were engaged in agriculture. The cost of free trade is incalculable. (Just start with the cost of trying to control exotic species that have invaded by via the packaging that accompanies goods that were made elsewhere, but could just as easily have been made here.)

    Ultimately, since there aren't really any natural advantages, there is only this: Free trade "works" by putting a lower value on the lives of some people than on the lives of other people.

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:50:57 AM PST

Thumb, anna, Sharon, cdreid, Angie in WA State, Drew, rick, vicki, Terri, Marek, SteveLCo, Jon Meltzer, canyonrat, Paleo, PhilK, Odysseus, eugene, ferg, SarahLee, XOVER, Hornito, Liberal Thinking, Neil Sinhababu, Geenius at Wrok, lrhoke, Delaware Dem, Raybin, Pen, hardleft, marcvstraianvs, cosbo, philgoblue, Unstable Isotope, Lahdee, tommurphy, Dave B, OLinda, be inspired, eeff, Hiroprotag, citydude2000, LeftHandedMan, Sandy on Signal, ManfromMiddletown, caliberal, RFK Lives, gjohnsit, Matilda, musicsleuth, Smallbottle, eyeswideopen, Xeno of Elia, bronte17, conchita, skrymir, BlackGriffen, cyberKosFan, DrKate, mbayrob, groggy, OCD, DaleA, peace voter, boadicea, chuckvw, Scoopster, repeat, mbair, roses, Frederick Clarkson, JuliaAnn, cognitive dissonance, tmc, kywddavid, nargel, Miss Blue, superba, chrisfreel, Nate Roberts, ctsteve, arkdem, antirove, Alna Dem, Yil, Eric Blair, antifa, danthrax, oldjohnbrown, Dr Colossus, missliberties, superscalar, gmb, grannyhelen, cometman, Munibond, desmoinesdem, roselynde1, Black Maned Pensator, attydave, AbsurdEyes, mrsnart, Dood Abides, Brian82, dkmich, Sam Loomis, Curt Matlock, Redbug, DrReason, jre2k8, Mike Erwin, poemworld, TheOrchid, patginsd, kd texan, snowbird42, Sybil Liberty, drewvsea, Gowrie Gal, rapala, greenskeeper, MichDeb, Skennet Boch, farleftcoast, Skaje, Alexander G Rubio, ichibon, docangel, LarisaW, baccaruda, JanetT in MD, Cook, irate, PBen, Paul Goodman, corvo, KnotIookin, kuvasz, frandor55, RequestedUsername, snacksandpop, Mz Kleen, Annalize5, Chaoslillith, buckeyedem08, civil society, chicagovigilante, jorndorff, annefrank, BobOak, Eric K, lasky57, martik, techno, mswsm, Rydra Wrong, wulidancer, The Raven, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, FightTheFuture, sodalis, LithiumCola, Cory Bantic, MetalCelt, Rogneid, JanL, empathy, jct, Jim P, SoulCatcher, Denny in Seattle, martini, redstar, esquimaux, keefer55, danmac, Do Tell, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, jsamuel, sherlyle, RustyBrown, BlueInARedState, leo joad, andydoubtless, koNko, KenBee, mrobinson, kck, greenearth, Lefty Coaster, NBBooks, DarkestHour, TalkieToaster, tecampbell, Tanya, real world chick, Sagebrush Bob, NearlyNormal, bleeding heart, Preston S, el cid, ER Doc, Dinclusin, jonboy, Pilgrim X, ChapiNation386, Dyana, blitz boy, IL clb, LJR, DemocraticLuntz, vox humana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Peter from WI, Cassiodorus, nannyboz, PurityOfEssence, pissedpatriot, AmySmith, kurious, pkbarbiedoll, Snarcalita, slksfca, illusionmajik, Aaa T Tudeattack, BentLiberal, ammasdarling, lams712, bigchin, Randall Sherman, SparkleMotion, peagreen, Cottagerose, Opinionated Ed, Nab, uniongal, ricsec7, suburi, Positronicus, BruceMcF, yoduuuh do or do not, America08, la urracca, yowsta, david mizner, HeartlandLiberal, NCDem Amy, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, deepeco, DWG, newpioneer, gatorbot, artisan, ca democrat, lizpolaris, jedennis, FOS, jnhobbs, dgil, rrheard, pioneer111, slowheels, JML9999, Quanta, eyesoars, Da Rock, sable, Hens Teeth, TomP, jgilhousen, AJ WI, dragoneyes, karin x, RedJet, spencerh, wade norris, NCCarboys, okamichan13, Akonitum, jamess, 123Mary123, Lujane, SmileySam, Andy823, numen, LaEscapee, echatwa, James Kresnik, Michael 4 Edwards, junta0201, BlueGenes, CatfishBlues, Ellinorianne, Mike Taylor, Chad Michaels, malibu1964, changeisconstant, AimlessDriver, Unseen majority, Traveling Companion I, ReasonedStoic

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site