Is Your Candidate Lying About "Free Trade"?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06STIG.html

"When President Bill Clinton first asked the Council of Economic Advisers about the economic importance of Nafta, early in his administration, our response was that potential geopolitical benefits were far more important than the economic benefits."

Did you read that? The "geo-political benefits" were greater than the economic benefits. That makes sense, now multi-national corporations have the "benefit" of being able to sue democracies to get rid of environmental regulations and labor rights.

READ THIS CAREFULLY:

It did not envision the free movement of labor, though that would have had a far larger effect on regional output than the free movement of capital, on which it focused. It did not envision a common set of economic regulations, or even a common currency. But hidden in Nafta was a new set of rights — for business — that potentially weakened democracy throughout North America.

Do you get it yet? It wasn't the economic advantages, it was the geo-political advantages - of giving new rights to business while WEAKENING DEMOCRACY.

"Under Nafta, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations (no matter how well justified), they may sue for damages in special tribunals without the transparency afforded by normal judicial proceedings. If successful, they receive direct compensation from the federal government. Environmental, health and safety regulations have been attacked and put into jeopardy. To date, suits with claims in excess of $13 billion have been filed."

If you still think this is about "comparative advantage" - read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06SCHU.html

Most economists want to view these changes through the classic prism of "free trade," and they label any challenge as protectionism. But these new developments call into question some of the key assumptions supporting the doctrine of free trade.

The case for free trade is based on the British economist David Ricardo's principle of "comparative advantage" — the idea that each nation should specialize in what it does best and trade with others for other needs. If each country focused on its comparative advantage, productivity would be highest and every nation would share part of a bigger global economic pie.

However, when Ricardo said that free trade would produce shared gains for all nations, he assumed that the resources used to produce goods — what he called the "factors of production" — would not be easily moved over international borders. Comparative advantage is undermined if the factors of production can relocate to wherever they are most productive: in today's case, to a relatively few countries with abundant cheap labor. In this situation, there are no longer shared gains — some countries win and others lose.

...


Is your candidate LYING? If your candidate is saying they supported NAFTA, but now want to add the environmental and labor protections that NAFTA was designed to destroy, are you buying it?

Which side are you on?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Umm, Bill Clinton isn't running for President.

Which candidates made what statements that you are branding as lies?

[redqueen]

2. Assuming here, but...

If I'm not mistaken, it's any candidate that claims they want to reform NAFTA / free trade agreements with labor and environmental blah blah pander pander pander...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. That would be a lie?

Because someone else said something different?

If someone is throwing out the claim that one or more of the candidates is lying, they should at least produce the statement(s) so that it's truth or falsehood can actually be debated.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. lying about their intentions?

If they say they want labor and environmental standards, then make sure they aren't included, isn't that lying?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. What is the statement that you are saying is a lie?

Please provide some subject matter for us to debate.

[redqueen]

7. Lawyered up

Yeah, this is where the going gets rough.

See, we've been hearing candidates say for a year plus that they'll 'reform' NAFTA with all these wonderful goodies.

You can beat your head against the wall trying to get the truth. It's not easy. I tried.

However, one has only to examine the empirical evidence to know that the 'reform' rhetoric is meaningless red meat. We've been witnessing the steadily worsening conditions that have occurred as a result of NAFTA-like policies for a decade. Don't you think that if there were any meaningful way to change it, we'd have seen it by now? I'm appealing to your common sense here.

We've been lied to and duped by both parties on this issue long enough.

It's time for the people of this country to get tough on its leaders, and so far based on what I've seen Kucinich and Sharpton are the only two to take this issue seriously. All the others (except maybe CMB) just say that anything other than the current agreements is 'isolationism'.

They're lying. If they're going to flat out lie to you on that, what makes you want to believe anything else they say on the subject?

[revcarol]

9. Go listen to CMB on today's NPR debate.

She all but labelled anyone who wants to do away with NAFTA "protectionist."

VERY disappointing.:(
(And also changed her view on us staying in Iraq, but that's another thread.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. I just reread every one of CMB's comments from the transcript,

and I didn't see anything like that. In fact she didn't even mention NAFTA.

Here is the link to the transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59300-2004Jan6?language=printer

perhaps you could find the statement you are talking about and post it here for us.

[revcarol]

11. She didn't say the word NAFTA.

She just said protectionist after Geppie and DK were against NAFTA.

I connected the dots. Did you find her saying the word "protectionist?" And what else would that word apply to except trade?

[revcarol]

12. Sorry, I was wrong. Iowa debate.

http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54363-2004Jan4?language=printer

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. OK, here is the statement from CMB that you are taking issue with.

MOSELEY BRAUN: Isn't the issue really one of balance? We can't afford to go the route of just protectionism that will jump-start a depression in this country nor can we afford to just give away the store, as has happened under this administration's leadership with our trade agreements.

You have to have environmental and labor standards and human rights standards in order to level the playing field for American companies so that we aren't hemorrhaging jobs as a result of our engagements with the rest of the world.

But to stand and tell the American people that protectionism will somehow or another keep jobs in this country is just not true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54363-2004Jan4?language=printer

You say: 'She all but labelled anyone who wants to do away with NAFTA "protectionist."' and I agree that labels can be deceptive and simplistic. But she did not stand there and simply label people protectionist. She talked about balance.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. it was the context of what she said

I said in the other thread I might be reading too much into it. CMB has been on our side on these issues for her entire career as far as I know.

But in that last debate, she criticized the exact people who were criticizing Dean over this issue - DK, Gephardt, and Edwards. That's why I'm now suspicious. Did they flip her and when?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. What context?

The link is right there. Please explain what you mean. I don't really read her comments as particularly harsh. I do think you are reading too much into it. And I think we Democrats are all alot closer on this issue than you seem to believe. I think your rhetoric is unnecessarily divisive and this is an issue we can easily find common ground on if we just try.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. sorry, when people calling themselves Democrats

attacks Democracy through FTAs, that's divisive, not me mouthing off on message boards.

Labelling anyone who doesn't believe corporations should have more rights than human beings as "protectionist" and "anti-globalization" is divisive.

And for CMB to attack Edwards, Gephardt, and Kucinich over "protectionism", and to misreprent DK's position on Iraq is unecessarily divisive.

If the next time I see Braun she's giving us good ideas on protecting our jobs and bringing our troops home, I'll gladly continue to sing her praises here on DU and elsewhere.
:)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. I haven't heard anyone

'Labelling anyone who doesn't believe corporations should have more rights than human beings as "protectionist" and "anti-globalization" '

No one did that except in your imagination.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. no, they did in the Democratic party

When people say they want people to have more rights than corporations - and oppose FTAs and Nafta because of it - they are routinely called "protectionist" and "anti-globalization".

It's certainly not very imaginative, for sure.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. That's exactly what I mean when I say your rhetoric is over the top.

[redqueen]

30. Sorry, but she said...

"to stand and tell the American people that protectionism will somehow or another keep jobs in this country is just not true"

After other candidates talked about how bad NAFTA was.

Now we can argue about what the definition of 'is' is, or we can face reality.

Reality is that she is presenting any opposition to NAFTA as 'isolationism'.

But it doesn't surprise me. CMB was never high on my list due to her siding with Lieberman and rethugs against Clinton on a very important issue.

Interesting to hear her use the 'if we end existing trade agreements we'll end up in a depression!' canard which Joe used previously in reference to Dean. Disgusting.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. Her statements do concern me

I admit I'm not an expert on her record, but until the last debate I pretty much agreed with her - and I love her straighforward, no spin support of Single-Payer Universal Health Care.

But her statements re: the war and "protectionism" DID seem very out of character, and as I said before, makes me think she cut a deal with the "free traders".

[the populist]

57. Is protectionist a derogatory term?

Isn't protectionism supposed to be a good thing?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

69. good question

you would think that "protecting American jobs" is a good thing for a politician to do...

[revcarol]

3. My candidate sez: as my first act in office, I will repeal NAFTA.

(paraphrase) DK is under no illusions as to how detrimental NAFTA, and the WTO are to the nation. Replace them by bi-lateral trade agreements, in which workers and the environment get a fair shake, and under which the corps don't get special treatment set in stone.

My candidate isn't lying. Neither is Gephart.

Disclaimer: my candidate is THE KOOCH.

edit: You remember how California wanted to ban BTE gasoline additive because it was polluting the water supply, and how one Canadian corp sued the state for enforcing their environmental regulations, because it would cause them financial loss?(The only company that made BTE.)

Most of the candidates want to do workers' rights and environmental stuff, but that WOULDN'T TAKE AWAY the special economic rights if the corp would be "damaged."

Best DUMP THE WHOLE THING.

[redqueen]

8. Kick

Important issue!

[xultar]

13. Fine $5.00 to Clark campaign if you are a Clark supporter n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. Clark wants to send my job to India

Let's say it's getting harder and harder to support the guy. I like his tax plan, but I won't be paying income taxes when I'm unemployed anyway.

[xultar]

28. I hear ya...I understand, I am in IT also... BUT

There's always a big BUTT when I show up (pun intended)

Clark is saying that we need to forge some new industries as well. He didn't say it right but I know what he is talking about. Remember when Textiles were big here back-n-the day? Well now the textile industry is a 3rd world industry. We've moved on to technology.

Let India have the low paying redundant work, wouldn't you rather re-tool and work on a project that develops the first genetic linked PC processor? Wouldn't you like to be a part of the company that develops a new cleaner abundant fuel?

He's saying to give incentives to keep jobs on shore by forging ahead in new industries. That is why we've moved ahead.

I was erked to say the least when he said that in the debate a while back. Then I looked @ my job and I realized I was BORED out of my mind. I'm trying to find out what new things I can get involved in to blaze a new trail. I was on the forefront of the whole IT boom in the late 80's early 90's. Now I'm looking for something else to do.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. hey, I've heard the spin

I've been following this issue very closely since Bush I and MAI. I know exactly what Clark is saying, and he's either totally clueless (not likely) or he is being purposefully deceptive.

Talk all you want about "forging ahead in new industries" - the purpose of "free trade" is to lower the standard of living for most Americans. The proponents have said as much, openly and publically, on numerous occasions for 20 years.

Sorry. When Paul Volker said that Americans get paid too much and we have to lower our standard of living, and the Republicans and Democrats both did everything they could to make it happen, a few random soundbites about "the glorious future" sounds too much like some old Russian commie telling us about next year's shoe production.

[revcarol]

17. I thought that was only if s/he attacked a candidate,

not discussing policies.

1st Amendment, ya know.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. The poster calls all candidates that don't agree with him/her liars

and that's not attacking a candidate? Why, because it's plural?

[xultar]

49. Fine is $10.00 donation to the campaign of your choice...n/t

[genius]

14. DK's telling the truth and he's the only one who wants to end the thing.

Either we forget about jobs and the environment in America or we hire DK to bring them jobs back and asave the environment.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. lying liars and the lies they tell

We were able to kill MAI - Bush's Multilateral Agreements on Investments - which was a pre-NAFTA. I remember when they were screaming about us getting involved and making our voices heard - how dare we?

They came up with all sorts of nifty economic theories about why it would be good for us, in the glorious future - first time I heard capitalists sound like utopian communinsts.

[Armstead]

22. Trade is the elephant in the room

DK and Gephardt atre the only ones who have any real positions that deal with the consequences of "free trade."

Gephardt has long been a critic of this scam. DK too.

I'm a Dean guy, but I wish he and all the otehr candidates were more like DK and Gep on this issue.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

27. Very true. I trust Gephardt and Kucinich on this issue

I do not trust Dean or Clark or Kerry on this at all.The jury is out on Edwards, but I'm leaning towards trusting him.

This will be THE issue of 2004, bet on it. When the outsourcing numbers get published, there will be a big problem for the Nafta-lovers, Republican and Democratic.

25% of the white-collar tech market jobs - poof! - vanished to China and India. Yes, that's right, 25% - on top of everything we've lost since 2000.

[redqueen]

31. Don't forget - CAFTA gets sent to Congress this quarter, most likely

CAFTA is supposed to be sent to Congress early this year.

Can't wait to see all the media buzz about it. /sarcasm

[BrewCrew]

33. I'm with you

Gephardt and Kuncinch definitely. These two know a bad trade agreement from a good one. Thats my only worry about Edwards. He voted against Fast-track, Singapore and Chile which were all the right descions, but voted for China PNTR. I actually think that might be the single worst trade agreement ever even conjured up in someone's head. Anyway. I know even Gephardt himself made some bad descions regarding trade along the way and early in his career, but nothing this big. Heck EPI is estimating we will have lost close to 900,000 jobs by 2010 because of this agreement. Thats mind boggling.

But I do think Edwards is starting to get it. So he's third. Not too close to DK or Gep, but still leaps and bounds better than the rest on this issue.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. Gephardt is 100% right on this, and has proved himself over and over again

I like Kucinich for other reasons too, but you won't hear me complaining about Gep - if I was in Iowa I would CERTAINLY vote for him, he's earned our trust a million times over. I didn't like his vote for GATT, but I understand that he probably thought it was the only leverage we could get to at least get FAIR trade deals - a pragmatic choice that I cannot criticize him for.

Edwards is starting to get it too. Let me tell you - a Gephardt/Edwards (or any combination of DK, Gep, and Edwards) ticket would not only get my money and my vote, but I'd have to buy new shoes because I would wear mine out going door-to-door signing up voters for them.

Kucinich, Gephardt, Edwards - I'm 100% behind any of them!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. This thread is nothing but a totally unfounded smear and distortion.

You've accused unnamed candidates of lying. You've been asked repeatedly to produce the statements you are claiming are lies and you have not done so. You've then gone on to characterize a position you disagree with, and acted like someone used the words you made up for them. When challenged, all you did was repeat your bogus charge.

The real question is not: "Is your candidate lying?" but
"Why are you accusing candidates of lying?"

The dishonesty of this thread makes me sick. Do you really think your positions are so weak that they can't be debated on their merits?

[redqueen]

35. "Why are you accusing candidates of lying?"

How can I put this....

1 - more than one candidate has claimed that they'll 'reform' or 'fix' NAFTA / other horrid trade agreements

2 - said trade agreements have existed for a decade

3 - changes have been made to the agreements, but not to help environment or workers

Is 'meaningful (environmental / labor reform) changes cannot be made to these agreements' not a logical conclusion to you somehow?

I'm assuming you think this issue is important. (Admittedly many liberals choose to stick their fingers in their ears and scream loudly to avoid even thinking about this, so kudos to you for even reading these threads.) If you do think it is important, then ask yourself:

Why hasn't anyone countered Kucinich's claim that you cannot reform or fix NAFTA?

Why haven't any changes been made (even under Clinton)?

Why won't anyone take this issue seriously in this election? This is VERY important as the bushistas (with help from centrist backstabbers) are about to expand NAFTA to Central America (CAFTA).


So, if you want a 'lie' in the textbook definition, I probably can't help you (actually I could, but I am working sorta, so...).

However, if you are looking for forthrightness on this issue, you might be surprised to look closely at the claims of the candidates accused of 'lying'. Chances are very very good that you'll also notice how 'misleading' their statements / views are.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. I'm sure if you started a thread on this topic, it would be more honest

in tone, and I encourage you to do so. I would enjoy discussing the issues you raise instead of responding to the flamebait accusations of dishonesty posted in this thread.

[redqueen]

39. I have

And they sink like stones. It's really depressing.

I'm sure I'll do it again, as CAFTA will be threatening us even more very soon. :(

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. Hey Feanorcurufinwe,

you're insistence on total honestly and giving the candidates the benefit of the doubt, even when their statements, if not outright lies, and utterly disingenuous and dishonest, is really really sweet.

Some candidates are lying. Most Americans are not surprised that politicans lie, and expect it, but I applaud you for your optimisism and trust in politicians, even if I say it's a bit naive. I guess I'm just more cynical than you are.

:)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. You claim lies, but are unwilling to quote them so they can be debated.

THAT is an 'utterly disingenuous and dishonest' debate tactic.

And with each post of yours that I read, I am becoming a little more cynical. Thanks for the 'education'. :puke:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. You claimed lies, not me

You are the one that said Dean lied. I just asked a question. Nice try, though, are you are embarrassed by Kerry's less than honest statements about "free trade"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Umm, read the title of your thread and every post you've made in it.

lol

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

66. my title: "Is your candidate lying about free trade"

That's my title. I asked a question. Notice how you haven't answered it - so many posts on this thread, and still you won't answer?

[revcarol]

36. Not so.

Take the case of Dean: stated many times he was "strongly" for NAFTA, testified before Congress on the treaty's behalf,went to the signing ceremoney...then on Russert, he waffles...something like'I don't know that I was strongly for NAFTA'...then even more weaseling on the campaign trail.NOW where does he stand. No one knows.
It is in the eye of the beholder whether this is lying or not. So definitely worth discussion.
The same applies to other candidates.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Yes Dean did lie about his support of NAFTA

as I've said repeatedly. There are nine candidates in this race and 8 of them I will defend against charges of dishonesty and lying. Dean is not one of those 8.

Dean also took issue with a characterization by a TV interviewer that he had been a ‘strong supporter’ of NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Dean acknowledged that he had supported NAFTA, but took exception to the ‘strong’ part. ‘I never did anything about it,’ he said. ‘I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down in the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter (to President Clinton) supporting NAFTA.’ The Gephardt campaign subsequently called attention to a transcript of a Jan. 29, 1995 ‘This Week’ show in which Dean told a different interviewer that ‘I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA.’”
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/dailyArchive/Sept2003/09-16-03PG1.htm
(please forgive the RW link, the original story from the Daytona Beach News-Journal is no longer online)

If you are accusing one of the other candidates of lying, please produce the statement you say is a lie so it's truth of falsehood can be debated. For example, the CMB statement above:

MOSELEY BRAUN: Isn't the issue really one of balance? We can't afford to go the route of just protectionism that will jump-start a depression in this country nor can we afford to just give away the store, as has happened under this administration's leadership with our trade agreements.

You have to have environmental and labor standards and human rights standards in order to level the playing field for American companies so that we aren't hemorrhaging jobs as a result of our engagements with the rest of the world.

But to stand and tell the American people that protectionism will somehow or another keep jobs in this country is just not true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54363-2004Jan4?language=printer

Now you may believe that CMB unfairly implied that one or more of the other candidates are 'protectionist'. But to call her statement 'a lie' is nothing but shrill hyperbole. She did not in fact say that any other candidate was a protectionist (and even if she did, that would merely be a characterization, an opinion) and I challenge you to point out one actual falsehood in her statement. In fact if you were to drop the overly defensive posture my guess is you would actually be agreeing with what she said.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

43. put up or shut up Feanorcurufinwe

I asked a question: "Is your candidate lying" - and then I stated that some of the candidates ARE lying. You just said that Dean is lying - so you agree with my post.

Are you just mad because Kerry seems just as dishonest and disingenuous about his support for FTAs as Dean does? After all, Kerry is a "free trader" like the rest of them - and he supported NAFTA *WITHOUT* the labor and environmental protections he gives lip service to now.

I may be inflammatory, but everything I said is accurate. If not, please point out what I said that's false. Otherwise, stop your baseless accusations against me.

Thanks in advance,
WCTV :)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. Comparing Kerry and Dean on trade

Following are written responses to the AFL-CIO candidate questionnaire:
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_dean.cfm
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_kerry.cfm

What will you do to ensure that global trade and international economic development promote workers’ rights, good jobs and workers’ well-being?

DEAN I support fair trade. I would not negotiate trade agreements that do not include meaningful labor, environmental, and human rights protections. I would not pursue trade policies that undermine important U.S. laws and regulations, especially those that protect American workers. I will vigorously enforce anti-dumping laws.

KERRY As President, I will insist that core environmental and labor standards are included in all trade agreements - and I'd enforce them for a change. We need to end child labor, improve standards for all workers, and increase our commitment to fighting global environmental problems - not watch them eroded by unfair agreements. I've worked to expand trade adjustment assistance and make sure that it reaches workers who are displaced.

The current administration's arrogance on matters of international diplomacy has squandered the tools we have to convince potential trading partners to work in cooperation to raise environmental and labor standards.

I had firsthand experience in negotiating trade agreements in Vietnam and in that case the prospect of opening markets convinced them to cooperate with return of POWs. The same principles should apply when negotiating trade with other countries.

Do you support or oppose the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), based on the NAFTA model that has created import surges that cost jobs and does not require enforcement of internationally recognized workers’ rights?

DEAN I would oppose any trade agreement that does not require enforcement of internationally recognized workers' rights.

KERRY I do not feel that we have done enough to enforce labor and environmental accords that were signed with NAFTA. I would impose stronger enforcement, as well as greater diplomatic pressure and more domestic investment to guarantee that trade not only lifts our economy, but also doesn't leave Americans behind.

Would you support or oppose any further rounds of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that do not make substantial progress on incorporating internationally recognized workers’ rights or fully protect U.S. trade remedy laws?

DEAN I would oppose any further rounds of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that do not make substantial progress on incorporating internationally recognized workers' rights.

KERRY I support continued negotiations, but feel that trade agreements should move forward in tandem with labor and environmental standards. We can be certain that such progress will not continue without American leadership and equally sure that the Bush Administration will not provide it.

What will you do to address the trade imbalance with China and promote internationally recognized rights for Chinese workers?

DEAN I am deeply concerned about the effect of Chinese labor practices on the U.S. job market. There is a direct relationship between the growing trade deficit and the loss of American jobs. U.S. trade policies must limit the flow of jobs to countries with weak labor standards - jobs that moved from the United States to Mexico are now moving to China. I would be especially vigilant in ensuring that any trade agreements with China include labor, environmental and human rights protections. I would also ensure that such agreements protect U.S. trade remedy laws.

KERRY I believe that economic engagement with China is the best way to promote progress on the issues of worker protections and respect of basic human rights. China should not be permitted to abuse international trade rules or engage in other harmful practices that contribute to our trade imbalance with China. As President, I will work with China on all of these issues. However, I will also press the rights of workers and companies before international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization, to ensure that China meets the various commitments of WTO membership and establishes basic liberties and rights for its citizens. Establishment and enforcement of basic rights in China is critical to the country's overall development.

RE: the original post, Kerry's done a lot more than pay lip service to environmental issues, so I don't see where he's lying about anything regarding changing or moderating his support of NAFTA.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. Kerry is all talk, no action

Well, that's not exactly true - Kerry is ALL ACTION when it comes to passing FTAs *without* the labor protections and environmental protections he *claims* to want.

His actions speak a lot louder than his words.

You and he can only fool people who don't know what happened:

"KERRY I do not feel that we have done enough to enforce labor and environmental accords that were signed with NAFTA. I would impose stronger enforcement, as well as greater diplomatic pressure and more domestic investment to guarantee that trade not only lifts our economy, but also doesn't leave Americans behind."

Kerry worked very hard to make sure those labor/environmental standards were NOT included in the actual trade deal.

Is Kerry lying? He is sure being deceptive.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Your statement is false.

I almost wish I was willing to launch this kind of dishonest attack against DK in retaliation, but I'm not. I respect him too much.

You accuse others of being deceptive. Well, you may or may not be well-versed in deception. I guess that is for the readers of this thread to decide.

"Kerry worked very hard to make sure those labor/environmental standards were NOT included in the actual trade deal."

It is simply false to say that. Perhaps you are uninformed, not dishonest, I don't know. But based on what I've read here, I don't think you are looking for information or debate. All I see are smears against the candidates you don't support.

Your posts set a new low for DK supporters, who I have as a group held in the utmost respect until now.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

64. no, your statement is 100% FALSE

and I would be willing to bet that you think you can get away with it because almost no one pays attention to the details of things like trade agreements. Let's look at what you said:

"I almost wish I was willing to launch this kind of dishonest attack against DK in retaliation, but I'm not. I respect him too much."

Yeah, whatever...

"You accuse others of being deceptive. Well, you may or may not be well-versed in deception. I guess that is for the readers of this thread to decide."

Your title was what again? (snicker) :)

(me: )"Kerry worked very hard to make sure those labor/environmental standards were NOT included in the actual trade deal."

(you: )"It is simply false to say that. Perhaps you are uninformed, not dishonest, I don't know. But based on what I've read here, I don't think you are looking for information or debate. All I see are smears against the candidates you don't support."

Yet, Kerry voted for them WITHOUT the protections - so, I ask again, who is being deceptive? Are you claiming that NAFTA didn't pass? Are you claiming Kerry didn't vote for it? Are you claiming that NAFTA does include the protections Kerry now supposedly wants? (and if they are in the trade deals, why would Kerry want to pass them now?)

"Your posts set a new low for DK supporters, who I have as a group held in the utmost respect until now."

Sure ... you've respected all of us DK supporter until my post, but now you are so insulted that you're reconsidering? You know what? You aren't fooling anyone. I've always wondering how many people on DU are really just paid campaign operatives. My only question is do they think they are getting their money's worth? :)

Kerry worked for NAFTA, pimped himself out for NAFTA, and was in the negotiations that passed NAFTA *WITHOUT* the labor and environmental protections that he now - while running for President - claims he wanted.

Kerry and Dean, and the rest of them, passed NAFTA *WITHOUT* the labor and environmental protections. When it came to the investor rights - Kerry made damn sure that there were enforements.

When it came to the environmental and labor protections, Kerry made sure they WOULD NOT be included in the "Free Trade" agreements, and instead gave us a "side agreement" with NO teeth.

Those are the FACTS now. Kerry can claim he really meant this, or he really meant that - but his ACTIONS speak louder than his words - Kerry voted yes on these trade agreements WITHOUT the labor and environmental protections.

You can fool people who didn't pay attention, but not me - I was there.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Your post is totally without merit.

As far as putting up or shutting up, I'll just ask you one more time:

If you say some statement Kerry -- or any other candidate -- has made, is a lie, please produce that statement so its truth or falsehood can be debated.

Since the evidence so far does not indicate you are willing to have an honest debate on the subject I don't expect you will do so.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

65. you claimed Dean lied, not me

put up or shut up, please ... this is getting tiring. I don't know what planet you are living on - but the facts are not in dispute.

I invite anyone to read the thread, see your claims and mine, and decide for themselves.

[HFishbine]

37. Book Recommendation

I didn't know much about this subject until I read "When Corporations Rule the World," by David Korten. Not a quick read, but very eye-opening.

[revcarol]

44. The point is not whether the candidates were lying about support for NAFTA

the first time, but whether they are lying now when they say it "can be fixed" by just adding some nice environmental and labor doo-doo on top of THIS PILE OF SHIT.

THEY KNOW that NAFTA is an organization passed BY THE CORPORATIONS, FOR THE CORPORATIONS.As long as that clause about corporations being "damaged" being able to go to their buddies in special tribunals and get compensation (MILLIONS of $$) is in there, IT CAN'T BE FIXED. And that part is the meat of the whole treaty. The candidates KNOW this, yet spout platitudes about "fixing NAFTA."

It's fundamentally flawed, and they know it, yet continue to kow-tow to the corporations and spout platitudes to the voters that it just needs a little tinkering. And that's LYING, in my book.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. thank you

It's obvious, but people just don't want to admit it, because WAY to many of the candidates are not being truthful about "free trade".

[redqueen]

47. Yes, they're lying

But we can't *prove* it. And the media is SURE not helping.

We need to get more visibility on this issue. I hope the CAFTA arguments that should start soon will open some people's eyes.

This is truly scary, and could be the most serious issue we face in the near future.

[corporatewhore]

46. My cannidate has a long history of working against nafta and..

will repeal Nafta as his first act

[the populist]

51. Too much pandering to the unions...I don't buy it...

The only candidates we can trust are Gephardt (who I support the most) and Kucinich.

Clark is a shameless free-trader. "building new industries" in America? "job retraining"? I feel like spitting at the screen whenever I hear this pandering. This is vague wishy-washy pandering. Gephardt and Kucinich have definite positions.

Dean seems to be pandering since he used to be a free-trader to the extreme as governor of Vt.

Kerry (who I like) is pandering to the service employees while forgetting the manufacturing sector: "it's only bad when the soccer moms begin to lose their jobs"

Edwards seems dishonest (NAFTA supporter) but he at least also seems sensible when he speaks.

Lieberman would be a disaster for all Americans (except a select few).

We should keep a close eye on pandering. What a politician says isn't always what a politician will actually do. Need I remind anyone Bush ran as a fiscal conservative isolationist anti-interventionist. well...I guess he succeeded in the isolationist part since he isolated America from the rest of humanity with his conquering of Iraq...but that's not exactly what I had in mind with "isolationism".

[NewYorkerfromMass]

55. Kerry has not forgotten manufacturing:

John Kerry plan to restore and revitalize the manufacturing sector of our economy includes:

Providing New Tax Cuts to Create Manufacturing Jobs in America and Closing Loopholes that Reward Moving Jobs Overseas. Kerry proposed a new jobs tax credit that would refund the payroll taxes for two years for any new employees hired at a manufacturing company and closes loopholes giving tax incentives to move jobs offshore.

Invest in Research & Development and Give Tax Incentives to Help Industries Upgrade and Better Train Manufacturing Workers Double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that helps small and mid-size manufacturers stay competitive. The Bush Administration has proposed a 90% cut.

Increase and Better Enforce Our Trade Laws to Assure America has a Level Playing Field

Provide Relief for Manufacturers that Provide Quality Health Care and Pensions.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1021.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. The way to revive our manufacturing sector is to out-compete

and that is what Kerry's plan will help us do.

[rdfi-defi]

62. how can we, as US workers, out-compete with slave wages

paid to the unfortunate of other states around the world. this has nothing to do with boot-straps.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

63. Kerry & Dean & Clark want us to out compete...

... by either working for slave wages, OR, if we are 5% that are super-geniuses, we can have the plum jobs.

For regular Americans, we'll just have to get by with less - nothing new, they have been saying it for years.

[rdfi-defi]

61. "providing new tax cuts to create manufacturing jobs.......

and closing loopholes that reward moving jobs overseas"

the "loopholes" are called NAFTA, CAFTA, ect.

as far as "providing new tax cuts", more trickle down econ. wont help US working people

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

70. yup

I agree 100%

[corporatewhore]

58. Iagree DK and gephardt are the only ones that are truly for labor

[revcarol]

67. Biggest applause of the evening at the county Dem mtg. tonite was when

the Kucinich representative said DK would throw out NAFTA. Almost the whole room stood up and cheered(even the Dean supporters.)

All the candidates' reps had their say, but this was the real showstopper.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

68. except for the wanna-be rich libertarians, most Dean supporters hate NAFTA

Most Dean supporters I know are against the FTAs, except for the rich people, and the wanna-be rich libertarian white males who haven't worked for a living yet.

Too bad that Dean "strongly supported Nafta" but now wants to add the labor and environmental protections he fought so hard to keep out of Nafta the first time...