David Sirota: Obama will vote for NAFTA expansion into Peru...

[SaveElmer]

"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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

[Stop Cornyn]

1. That's hugely disappointing. How will Dodd, Biden, and Hillary vote?

[SaveElmer]

2. Honestly...I have no idea...nt

[incapsulated]

3. Odd, since he voted no on CAFTA

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

4. Raise your hand if you're surprised.

[rinsd]

5. I am sure quite a few Obama supporters were.

I liked this quote by him.

"He also affirmed his support for free trade. “I am not going to say on a blanket basis that I’m going to vote against trade agreements,” Obama said. “We cannot draw a moat around the u.s. economy b/c china is still trading, India is still trading.”

[Cameron27]

6. Over here,

:hi: I'm surprised.

Interesting, K&R for more discussion.

[leftist_not_liberal]

7. “There’s class warfare, all right,”

Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

The party of the (rich) people.

Despicable.

on edit, recommended

[AtomicKitten]

8. Obama apparently did not actually say how he was going to vote.

Obama: Yes on Peru & Panama, AND to Fair Trade?
4 10 2007

Date: 10/3/07

Situation: IFTC volunteer’s Public Question during Town Hall Mtg. on Foreign Policy - Washington County Fairgrounds - Washington, IA

Question: NAFTA & CAFTA have failed for the US and for Latin America. Corporate trade policies have taken good jobs overseas, kept wages low and forced Latin American workers from their homes and into exploitative working conditions. New standards inserted into new NAFTA expansions will do nothing to change this situation.

Will you support Bush’s new NAFTA expansions to Peru and Panama despite this awful track record?

Answer: Sen. Obama stated he wasn’t fond of NAFTA or CAFTA, but “doesn’t believe we can isolate our selves from the world.” He said was was in favor of Fair Trade policy and that he opposed Bush’s Korea NAFTA expansion, because it was unfair to US auto exports.

He said that he thinks we need to pass the Peru and Panama deals because they will benefit American workers (and added that he would work with the Mexican government to help them develop jobs for their citizens in their country!)

http://tradebirddoggers.wordpress.com/category/obama/

[incapsulated]

Well, basically, he did

"He said that he thinks we need to pass the Peru and Panama deals"

I mean, if you say "we need to pass this" I assume you are going to vote for it.

Edit to add, maybe he is misinformed about it, I dunno.

[Radical Activist]

16. Just like that BS about Obama supporting coal-to-fuel, right?

It turned out that Obama only supported some research, and only implementation if it could be shown to reduce CO2. A lot of people are eager to stretch the truth and make Obama look more conservative than he really is. Sirota has been part of that campaign for a while now.

[incapsulated]

18. Hey, I'm just going by what the thing says

If I told you, "we need to pass this deal" what would you think? I'm against it?

I'm not trying to do anything, I'm not against Obama. In fact, I hope this is a misrepresentation of what he means.

[Radical Activist]

32. I wasn't directing

my comment directly at you. I was just pointing out the broad campaign to distort Obama into being a conservative. It mostly comes from the Kucinich crowd but it isn't limited to them.

[gateley]

13. You have a point. nt

[Tellurian]

9. Obama is living in Wally World..

and carrying all the water he can for the status quo..

what happens when he trips and falls?

[Hydra]

10. That's strike three

1. Inexperienced and often missteps- bad idea for a President
2. More mid-East Madness

and now "free trade" among the mess we created in South America?

Next!

[gateley]

11. When is the vote? And Obama supporters if there's time to let him know how

you feel - do it. Isn't that what we want in a President - someone who will listen to the people? Give him a chance.

Recommend.

(I'm meanwhile going to go digging to see if Biden has addressed this..)

[Radical Activist]

12. I'll wait to hear something from Obama himself.

Sirota has been campaigning against Obama all along. He has no credibility left with me after his previous misleading hatchet jobs against Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Good point; Sirota is an Edwards partisan

[elizm]

19. He absolutely is an Edwards partisan. nt

[maximusveritas]

23. Not only that, but he harbors a strange hatred of Obama

I'm ok with partisans spinning for their side, but Sirota takes it much further.
Remember his DailyKos diary "The Ridiculousness & Danger That Is Obama '08"? That was one of the most dishonest pieces I've ever read, from either the left or right.

[Cameron27]

15. Yep,

Sirota's not an unbiased voice in this campaign. I'd like to hear what Obama has to say too.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I'll wait for more clarification.

Sirota has demonstrated an ax to grind in the past.

[maximusveritas]

20. Sirota spinning as usual; while the AFL-CIO isn't supporting this, it isn't opposing it either

In fact, they've called it "an enormous improvement" over past trade deals because it does include those standards.
They are really internally divided on this legislation, which is why they've chosen not to get involved one way or another.
Instead, they've decided to focus on opposing the much worse Columbia and South Korea deals.
Of course, you wouldn't know that by just reading Sirota's spin.

[incapsulated]

21. Actually, a Google points this to MSNBC, originally

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/403888.aspx

[Cameron27]

25. hmmm,

thanks incap.

[maximusveritas]

26. Yes, MSNBC just has the story without the misleading spin n/t

[incapsulated]

27. Ok, more research....

The AFL-CIO doesn't "support" but won't fight it but unions not part of the AFL-CIO have vowed that they will, such as the teamsters. And the General Federation of Workers in Peru are against it, it seems.

This is expected to pass with democratic support.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ao6hjonl6EJE&refer=latin_america

[Radical Activist]

22. How not surprising.

Any article Sirota writes regarding Obama should be fact checked and taken with a heavy dose of skepticism.

[Adelante]

28. That's the truth nt

[Cameron27]

29. Yeah but this is from Obama

From incapsulated's MSNBC link:

"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. “I am not going to say on a blanket basis that I’m going to vote against trade agreements,” Obama said. “We cannot draw a moat around the u.s. economy b/c china is still trading, India is still trading."

[Radical Activist]

30. first

MSNBC isn't always accurate either. Its not a direct quote.

Second, the quote you just posted doesn't say he affirmed support for "free" trade. Being for fair trade does in fact involve signing a good trade agreement now and then. How can he "affirm" support for free trade when he has always said he was for fair trade?

[Cameron27]

31. Point taken

:thumbsup:

[gateley]

24. Campaign 2008 – Trade Issues and Presidential Candidate Survey

Quotes from all the candidates:

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/applet.asp?id=8236