"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (RHF)

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.



That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA
negotiations,
blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The
Republicans were the
ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are
too blinded
by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones
that were
responsible.


You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this
same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly
claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew
what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on
incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat
what I wrote:

"The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO."

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."

Thing of it is - there's nothing wrong with NAFTA. We just have to
compete better. It's not a fair playing field - I'll grant you that.
But I bet you that we'll get do just fine. My faith is in free trade.


On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:43:50 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote:


"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (RHF)

The First Rule of Politics is . . .

It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame.

It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]

So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame.



That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA
negotiations,
blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The
Republicans were the
ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are
too blinded
by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones
that were
responsible.


You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this
same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly
claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew
what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on
incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat
what I wrote:

"The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO."

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."

From: Ken Thomas

Thing of it is - there's nothing wrong with NAFTA. We just have to
compete better. It's not a fair playing field - I'll grant you that.
But I bet you that we'll get do just fine. My faith is in free trade.

I used to be there, Ken. But it seems that neoliberal economic "free trade" has
just been a ticket for US companies to relocate their production facilities to
other countries, with far lower wages, far fewer worker safety laws, and far
fewer environmental regulations. No matter how much we strive to be increase
our competition efficiency, companies will always save money on wages and
regulatory avoidance by moving outside the US. We permanently lose jobs in the
US and face incredible trade imbalances (a tpoic you won't hear Republicans
addressing!). Those foreign counties don't really benefit, either, since they
face environmental degradations and worker safety accidents.

We used to think that corporations were the best way to avoid state-based
warfare. Now, under Bush, we see how turning the corporations loose might just
be a path for corporations to push states into warfare for profit-based
reasons.

Fair trade, not free trade.

Bryant

From: "T. Early" fenwick_island@yahoo.

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."


Well, here's an interesting test: Would have NAFTA been passed if Bill Clinton
had lost to GH Bush? Certainly, it had bipartisan support, as you so clearly
pointed out. Remember, Clinton kept the Bush negotiating team, so we would've
had the same treaty with either President.

Based on the points you have clarified, it seems that you agree that anyone
blaming NAFTA on Clinton simply doesn't understand the strong Republican
support for neoliberal economic policies. Even GW Bush is striving the Western
Hem Free Trade Zone, right?

I used to support the vague notion of free trade. I used to believe that
countries trading with each other were less likely to go to war. But the
evolution of neoliberal trade policies as exemplified by recent free trade
agreements seems like a race to the bottom, maximizing international corporate
profits over environmental concerns, human rights, national employment
foundations and livable wages.

In this light, I think Clinton and both Bushes are guilty of placing trade
concerns above other legitimate concerns.

Bryant