When arguing with right wing friends and relatives this weekend.....

[JohnnyRingo]

Steer the debate towards unfair trade laws, NAFTA, and the exportation of jobs to Mexico.
They always take the bait and bash Clinton for something they feel was bad for America.

Let them work Clinton over real good. It's not difficult to get them to claim that it's the main source of many of our problems today.
Let them get absolutely rabid about it.

....Then spring this on them:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2582

And ask them if they really thought NAFTA sounded like a democrat's idea. Maybe GWBuxh's CAFTA will bring the jobs back

[annabanana]

1. good point..

They have always failed to look behind the curtain.

[Demit]

2. I didn't know that! NAFTA was Bush I's baby?

Wow, I feel stupid. Thanks for posting that.

[politicaholic]

6. Yup, Clinton just signed it to ratify it...

That was before the "line item veto" so he had to take it wholesale.

[liberalhistorian]

3. Why do we even have to bring politics into it?

The holidays are a time to be together with family without bringing politics into it. I have RW family and just deal with it, there are times when family is more important than politics.

[chalky]

5. For some of us, it's called self defense.

Trust me, I avoid the topics like the plague.

Until I'm backed into them.

[CTyankee]

10. Isn't that the truth?!!!

I say nothing politically and then my repub brother in law says something off the wall! I told my husband I won't put up with it any more. He is on notice that I will not start anything but if anything is started with me, I will respond and I will not sit there like a potted plant.

These RWingers are like insects. They prey upon progressives, thinking they can eat us alive. It doesn't happen that way, of course, because they can't.

[chalky]

4. Bookmarking, baby!

n/t

[JohnWxy]

7. LAMBRO IS A CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDIST

I went to the link you provided and found the article to be very equivacle about benefits of NAFTA. I found one statement to be pariticularly incredible and also suspect:

"Some NAFTA supporters say the agreement has created as many as 12 million new U. S. jobs and credit NAFTA with a role in dropping the overall unemployment rate from 7.5 to 4.9 percent since 1994. __(14)"

First of all, "some NAFTA supporters" could include people of absolutely no credibility and yet the statement is included in what purports to be a serious attempt at understanding and quantifying the effects of NAFTA.

Second, the claim that NAFTA created 12 million new jobs and reduced unemployment from 7.5% to 4.9% was obviously from the realm of fantasy of the wildest sort. Including this statemtent in this report is extremely suspect.

I checked the reference for this statement and found the article that it was excerpted from “NAFTA Success Saga Beyond Expectations” published by the Washington Times, a well known Neo-Conservative pseudo newspaper which routinely publishes articles of madness and propaganda. (“NAFTA Success Saga Beyond Expectations,” David Landro, Washington Times)

So I went to Media Matters (www.mediamatters.org) a GREAT web site for tracking down conservative propagandists.

Lambro selectively cited poll data to downplay Democratic public support

HERE'S WHAT I FOUND:

David Lambro is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Times. Here is one of many examples given of Lambro's style of twisting reality:

Lambro selectively cited poll data to downplay Democratic public support

Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro selectively cited data from a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll to claim that Democrats "aren't doing any better" in the polls than Republicans. In a November 10 column, Lambro argued that the Democratic "attack strategy" will not help the party in the 2006 elections, and cited one piece of data from a Washington Post/ABC News poll indicating Americans believe Republicans have "stronger leaders." However, the single piece of data Lambro cited stands against a preponderance of data in the poll indicating that Americans feel more in touch with Democrats, place more trust in Democrats than Republicans to handle most issues facing the country, and would like to see Democrats assume control of Congress in 2006.
From Lambro's November 10 Washington Times column:
But that was then, this is now -- two months before the start of the 2006 election season when the Democrats think this new and much more aggressive attack strategy will put them back into control of Congress.
But as weak as Mr. Bush and the Republicans may seem now, according to all the polls, the Democrats aren't doing any better.
"The public sees the Democrats as disorganized, lacking in clear ideas or a positive alternative to the GOP agenda, and bereft of appealing leaders," The Washington Post reported Sunday in a story about their latest party preference poll.
When The Post's poll asked which party has stronger leaders, respondents chose Republicans over Democrats by 51-35 percent. That's a convincing reason why the Democrats need to spend more time developing a national security agenda and less time playing political war games.
According to the Post/ABC poll*, conducted October 30-November 2, 53 percent of respondents would vote for the Democratic candidate from their congressional district if elections were held today, versus 36 percent who would vote for the Republican candidate. Overall, 49 percent of respondents trust Democrats "to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years," as opposed to 37 percent who trusted Republicans. With regard to specific issues facing the nation, higher percentages of respondents expressed more trust in Democrats than Republicans on almost every issue (percentage for Democrats listed first): the economy (56-34); Iraq (48-37); education (55-32); Social Security (56-29); gasoline prices (47-26); health care (54-29); taxes (48-38); the federal budget (48-34); and ethics in government (42-36). Democrats and Republicans drew equal support (48 percent each) on "the U.S. campaign against terrorism." The poll data also demonstrated that pluralities of respondents believe that Democrats better represent their own personal values (50 percent); are more concerned with their needs (56 percent); and are more open to the idea of people who are political moderates (60 percent).
* According to the Post: "The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points, and plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on the subsample."
— S.S.M.]

Actually, I would be very surprised to find any Conservatives who didn't love NAFTA as if helps to weaken and bust unions. The whole idea that we would gain from free trade with Mexico is suspect as their standard of living is so far below ours they don't have enough people with enough money (except for the generals and drug king-pins ) to buy that much of our higher priced products. Any food products one would cite they already were importing in great quantities before NAFTA.

At any rate one needs to be careful about the agenda's of those who are writing various articles and books. Media Matters is a real good web site for this purpose.

[JohnnyRingo]

8. "Lunch bucket" Republicans frequently bash Clinton for signing NAFTA

The purpose of referencing this article is the value contained in the first paragraph. That NAFTA was a brainchild of the GOP.

Indeed, many conservatives were attacking Clinton for "taking the teeth" out of the original agreement before selling it to the Senate.

Since average work-a-day Joe republicans tend to get worked up against Clinton in casual debate about outsourcing, it puts them on the spot to explain why a republican president initiated NAFTA as one of his last official acts.

I perhaps should include this as reference:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm

excerpt:
President Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992, but sending it to the Senate for ratification would be up to the next president. Facing stiff questions from labor unions-a core Democratic Party constituency-candidate Bill Clinton declared that he would support NAFTA if it included side agreements on labor rights and the environment.

In a much-cited speech in 1992, just before the presidential election, Clinton stated that NAFTA, as negotiated, did "nothing to reaffirm our right to insist that the Mexicans follow their own labor standards, now frequently violated." After Clinton's speech, President Carlos Salinas of Mexico expressed his willingness to address concerns beyond the specific trade issues dealt with in the main accord.

_____________________________________________________________
One would think that conservatives would embrace unfair trade agreements, and indeed they do, but working class republicans only heard the part where Clinton passed the agreement.

And they know NAFTA is hurting them.

[Dances with Cats]

9. I smacked.....

'em upside the head with a drumstick and had another drink of Wild Turkey. just kiddin'.......