Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
October 9, 2007 1:49 PM
BREAKING: Obama Says He Will Vote for NAFTA Expansion
Hot off the presses from MSNBC:
"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."
The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration - or any administration - is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.
Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project - a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.
Trade has been known to be a huge issue in Iowa (remember Dick Gephardt in 1988), so this announcement could very well ripple through the 2008 primary.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
- Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest
- Viva Las Vegas?
- Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed
- We WERE Punked
- CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications
- Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
- Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.
- Becerra Turns Down USTR
- In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
February 17, 2009 -
February 10, 2009 -
February 4, 2009 -
January 27, 2009 -
January 20, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
Obama's days of hitting the pulse of the people are gone, I'm afraid. Even the majority of Republicans now realize what an abject failure NAFTA is for Americans.
The only rationale left is that it's more welfare for people who don't need the handout. It's certainly been shown not to benefit the populations of the countries our jobs go to. Sure they get a few jobs that pay more than they are used to, so a few benefit from that. But under NAFTA expansion, they sign away any right to labor representation in the workplace, and have no ability to hold the foreign companies accountable for environmental degradation, a worsening problem.
Dare I observe that Dennis Kucinich is still in the race, and has always been firmly against NAFTA?
Can you say just another sell out to corporate America?
Well the real Obama has come out and it ain't pretty - a charismatic corporate whore.
I expect Hillary to follow suit shortly.
I can only hope now that rank and file Democrats will stop supporting this dirtbag.
I sure hate to see what Cooke County is going to do to Obama because that county in the entire state of IL has the most to SEVERELY lose as does rural IL. Ever since he voted for the tort bill back in 2005 and has always bashed those who try to take action against continuing the war in Iraq, I knew he was a FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD. IL would be a perfect state to get a Progressive Independent into office as I seriously wonder how the hell IL can put up with choosing between the Hyde GOP and the Bill Daley Democrats.
Is this just more evidence that Obama is merely a stalking horse for the Clintonistas??? Obama has received so much attention and money that might have gone to John Edwards or even Denis Kucinich.
Like Sirota has said Obama has really been running a vague personality base campaigned. The more his followers find out about just how much of a child of priveledge DLC triangulator he really is, the more likely his support is going to fade.
I am amazed that the vast majority of Obama supports I have meant know little or nothing about Obama's personal biography. The more they learn, they will find that the attraction of the novelty of his candidancy rested on false perceptions that will not hold up to stronger scrutiny. Obama spent his middle school and high school years with his white kumbaya liberal grandparents and going to a very priveledged mult ethnic private school in Hawai. His teenage years seem to have had more incommon with hanging out with both the "Jeff Spicolis" and priveledged Ivy leaque bound set of the world then a urban working class childhood.
Personally, Obama biography should not matter that much. But given that Obama has such a limited political career and only two years as a senator, on what other basis do folks have to judge his worthiness as president?
However, Obama corporatist beltway stand on trade should convince lots of folks that he is not the substantive change from the past that folks were looking for. Is it really any wonder though? When Obama has been so unwilling to meet face to face with African American skilled laborers who have lost their jobs to "Free Trade". Likewise there have been the stories of Black Engineers and IT professional who have been able to get face time with Obama. Yet Obama has been perfectly happy to collect millions in donations from corporate pro Labor Arbitrage "nonimmigrant" indentured visa advocates. Last Obama has bought into the fallacy that Open Borders and the flood of resulting illegal aliens is not impacting the ablity of African American males to find decent paying low skill entry level jobs.
I really just wish Obamamania would collapse before Thanksgiving. That way perhaps Edwards will have a chance to catch a second wind and get his campaign together before Hillary simply walks away with the nomination for the lack of a credible opposition.
He seems to be just another Democratic Party fraud, the problem is there seems to be more frauds in this Party than there are working class allies. The bum has lost any chance of getting my vote.
Sometimes I think the Democratic Party is more dangerous than the Republican Party, which is scary, because the Democrats seem to be a good cover for multinational corporations as they attack my family's future and the middle class of this country.
Regards,
I would say that the evidence is pointing to Obama being a stalking horse for Clinton designed to derail Edwards and Kucinich. Because he does is prevent or knocks out of the discussion a comparison between Edwards and Hillary, not to mention draining funds from Edwards.
And he's done a great job so far running with his gaseous "audacity of hope" campaign. How can people be so gullible as to actually believe a empty suit like Obama who spouts nothing but pat answers, platitudes, obfusications and bland generalizations?
The guy is a methane generator on two legs.
BTW another Clinton stooge is retired general Wesley Clark who is Hillary's water carrier on Iraq.
You might be interested to know that I was troll rated at dKos for linking to this post.
Obamaites are really not interested in even hearing anything that does not mesh with their views on 'Senator Hope'. In this, they most resemble the Freepi and RedStaters. It would be a very good thing if he gets knocked out in IL as he and his cult are not the answer to our nation's pressing problems.
I've been trying to avoid the personal in my comments and posts about this guy....
I may have to reevaluate that approach.
A.Citizen,
Try commenting on just about any so-called 'A-list' "progressive" blog about the shady side of Dem candidates (declared and undeclared) and its label you 'troll' or ban city. These 'A-list' (named well:)blogs that can't stand constructive debate are no better than msm outlets -- or worse.
Obama is the stalking horse for Clinton while Edwards and Kucinich are the closest the Dems have to standing up for the middle class. In the meantime, chatter is up that Gore will announce a run if he wins the Nobel prize. What do you think a Gore presidency would do for this country's high tech professionals? Could Hillary be the stalking horse for Gore? She did, after all, send him a box of chocolates on Valentines Day...
There's one thing I've always said about traitors such as Obama. The voters will be happy to say "WE DON'T NEED NO WATER LET THE MOTHERFUCKER BURN ! BURN , MOTHERFUCKER, BURN !!!!"
And if that's not bad enough, get ready for more CAPITULATION from these Democrats on FISA:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4410/
Yah, I had the feeling Obama was for the establishment; he was its wet dream I'm sure. The clear choice seems to be Kucinich or Ron Paul. ...And I would not bet on Gore being any better this time around.
I had emailed David's article to Obama's campaign worker that I know and this is the response I received:
This is not accurate.
NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement
Peru = South America
David Sirota is wrong.
The trade agreement with Peru, a South American country, is not an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
It has nothing to do with NAFTA or CAFTA, which Senator Obama does not support. It was independently negotiated and unlike those agreements, the Peru agreement includes enforceable labor and environmental protections.
The Peru Trade Agreement has Enforceable Labor Protections
The Peru agreement - unlike NAFTA and CAFTA, -- includes the five basic internationally recognized labor standards set forth in the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
These rights - along with each country's obligation to enforce its labor laws - are to be fully enforceable under the dispute settlement provisions of the Peru Trade Agreements, just as all other provisions.
Thea Mei Lee, the AFL-CIO economist testifying before Congress said that the Peru trade agreement was "an enormous improvement" over past Bush agreements with Chile, Singapore, Morocco and others. She said that AFL-CIO unions were on both sides on the Peru agreement, and it was putting its priorities into opposing two other pending free trade agreements, with Colombia and South Korea.
House Democratic Leadership, including Speaker Pelosi and Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, support the agreement.
The Peru Trade Agreement will Have Minimal Impact on American Jobs
Despite the pace of growth in both U.S. exports to, and imports from Peru, the economic impact of the agreement will be small - Peru accounts for only about one-third of one percent of total U.S. imports.
98% of Peruvian exports to the United States already enter the U.S. duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA).
The Peru Trade Agreement has Additional Benefits
98% of Peruvian exports to the United States already enter the U.S. duty free under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The Peru Agreement will help American firms by immediately providing duty-free treatment to 80% of non-agricultural U.S. exports and about two-thirds of agricultural exports to Peru.
The agreement buttresses US economic links to a growing Latin American economy and may help build US political and economic ties to the region.
Barack Obama Will Only Support Trade Agreements that Help American Workers
As president, Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs and will oppose trade agreements that help corporate special interests at the expense of American workers.
Obama will stand firm against those agreements that fail to strengthen opportunities for American workers and lack meaningful labor and environmental protections. That's why he voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to their domestic industries. The Bush Administration has been asleep at the wheel on this issue. It has failed to fight clear violations of international trade agreements, including China's ongoing currency manipulation.
Obama will make strategic investments to assist workers who have been left behind by globalization. He'll update and expand trade adjustment assistance to reflect the realities of globalization and will work to help entire communities rebuild after a major employer shuts down.
Barack Obama will Work to Fix NAFTA, Not expand it to Other Countries
Barack Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA on behalf of American workers. Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. It has not created the jobs and wealth that were promised. Obama believes that we can, and must, make trade work for American workers by opening up foreign markets to U.S. goods and he will ensure that NAFTA lives up to that important principle.
The Obama campaign is shamelessly trying to fudge the issue. The Peru deal is 99% NAFTA. Read here for more.
Republican hopeful Duncan Hunter was interviewed by Chris Matthews yesterday at the debate (afterwards), and HE said a lot of the right things about being against "free trade" and for American jobs, workers, product safety, and how we've let China screw us over (I don't include the fat cats among us who are profiting mightily from all of China's abuses).
This is definitely a bipartisan issue - I would never vote for a Republican, but one has to find out which candidates in either party are for "free trade" or fair trade.
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that recognizes the danger of corporatism and "free" trade...and intends to stop it...but no one seems to want to listen to what he says...because he "looks funny" so we will again vote against our own best interest..the handsome one or the lady....? Fools
Here's my two cents worth. This example of a misinformed Senator is scary and Bush reminiscent. That can't be denied, but the rest can. Probably he's not the only misinformed member of congress. They may be in the majority. God help us if we can't put people in office who are better informed. I think Hillary loves lobbyists because she doesn't know which way is up. (Or is she a Republican that wears pants?) The claim made by the O'Bama rep (official?) here claims the Peru agreement is different the way he explains it. David saying it is "fudging" doesn't counter this claim. What is true. Does it have enforceables? We don't want to cut our nose off to deny corporation selling their goods. That doesn't help matters either.
Thank you David. I will pass along your response about the Peru agreement. I do want Senator Obama to vote against this agreement. I did send another email to the Obama campaign concerning the Panama agreement and here was their reply:
"Please tell Teresa that we will raise the issue with the campaign. The Senator has consistently voted against trade measures that fail to protect workers and the environment. That's why he voted against CAFTA and will vote against the bi-lateral trade agreement with Korea."
Join the Discussion