I won't attempt to repeat verbatim what McCain said on CNN while spending some time in Phoenix, Arizona. Suffice it to say, what he said to the people in Ohio while campaigning in that state prior to the 4 March 2008 primaries, is not what he said to the nation at large on 3 March 2008. He supports NAFTA. NAFTA is a major issue in the industrial belt of Ohio. NAFTA is blamed for heavy losses in the industry base of Ohio. When Senator McCain campaigned through Ohio in the last few days, he blamed high corporate taxes for why jobs had left Ohio and why they won't be coming back.
But when it came to Democrats Clinton and Obama saying that they would take a closer look at NAFTA on the behalf of the voters of Ohio, McCain announced that he supported NAFTA, he would oppose any review of reform of NAFTA because any such review or reform would call into question other trade agreements. In short, the trade agreements that shipped entire manufacturing bases, textile, electronics, etc. overseas. Side note here, a memo surfaced that disclosed some official from the Obama campaign telling some Canadian consulate that all the anti-NAFTA talk was just political rhetoric. That is, what presumably had come from the public statements of the Obama campaign. I can take that as a given.
But, I also come away with this given: Hillary Clinton is the wife of the president who signed off on NAFTA and who certainly supported the most favored nation trade agreements with China. Does CNN really want to look as closely at Clinton's known record as they are prepared to hype loose talk from a financial adviser in the Obama campaign that may do some damage but not enough to keep him from obtaining the nomination? How about discussing with far closer scrutiny that McCain wants to "reduce taxes" to keep corporations on American soil but at the same time, supports the trade agreements that as Hillary Clinton put it, presents a race to the bottom [in cheap labor]. Cheap foreign labor. Seems to me that NAFTA is all about political rhetoric from all competing camps; both Democratic and Republican. Yeah, where is that "straight talk" McCain when you need him.
But when it came to Democrats Clinton and Obama saying that they would take a closer look at NAFTA on the behalf of the voters of Ohio, McCain announced that he supported NAFTA, he would oppose any review of reform of NAFTA because any such review or reform would call into question other trade agreements. In short, the trade agreements that shipped entire manufacturing bases, textile, electronics, etc. overseas. Side note here, a memo surfaced that disclosed some official from the Obama campaign telling some Canadian consulate that all the anti-NAFTA talk was just political rhetoric. That is, what presumably had come from the public statements of the Obama campaign. I can take that as a given.
But, I also come away with this given: Hillary Clinton is the wife of the president who signed off on NAFTA and who certainly supported the most favored nation trade agreements with China. Does CNN really want to look as closely at Clinton's known record as they are prepared to hype loose talk from a financial adviser in the Obama campaign that may do some damage but not enough to keep him from obtaining the nomination? How about discussing with far closer scrutiny that McCain wants to "reduce taxes" to keep corporations on American soil but at the same time, supports the trade agreements that as Hillary Clinton put it, presents a race to the bottom [in cheap labor]. Cheap foreign labor. Seems to me that NAFTA is all about political rhetoric from all competing camps; both Democratic and Republican. Yeah, where is that "straight talk" McCain when you need him.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment