Comments on: Clinton Schedules Vague But Lead To Evidence of NAFTA Lie

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:31:31 +0000

Wayne,

The effects of NAFTA are certainly open to different interpretations. I’m far more interested in the manner in which Clinton tries to rewrite history on her views based upon what is politically expedient. It wouldn’t bother me if she had supported NAFTA if she was honest about it, and from there went on to discuss what she would do in response to any harm it might have caused, or even if she defended benefits from it.

The problem with Clinton is that she has no principles other than supporting what is politically expedient. If the political winds change, she is perfectly willing to rewrite history, just as with her position on Iraq.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:03:28 +0000

Of course the reality is that NAFTA has not had the negative impact that Clinton, Obama or most of the unions claim. From http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9248, a WSJ article by Daniel T. Griswold, Mar 1 2008: “Ohio workers would pay a heavy price for pulling out of Nafta. Canada and Mexico are the top two markets for exports from Ohio, accounting for more than half of the state’s exports in 2006. According to the Ohio Department of Development, 283,500 workers in the state earn their living in the export sector, with machinery, car parts, aircraft engines and optical/medical equipment among the leading exports. A trade showdown would put those good-paying jobs at risk.

Since Nafta took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the U.S. economy has added a net 26 million new jobs. The average real hourly compensation (wages and benefits) of workers has climbed 23%. Real median household net worth has increased by a third. Of course, Nafta was not the primary driver of all that good news. But it is a useful counterpoint to the sense that large numbers of Americans have been “devastated” by Nafta and other trade agreements.”

By: Lex

Lex — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:13:34 +0000

A recent reading of Elizabeth Drew’s On The Edge clued me into the deeper story here. The administration was trying to decide which major initiatives to focus on: NAFTA, health care, and/or reinventing government.

Obviously, health care was Hillary’s fiefdom. She apparently was “against” NAFTA, but not on principle…because it subtract from the health care effort.

So she’s able to say that she was against it, gently misleading us by not explaining why.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:21:36 +0000

No wonder the Borg Queen dragged her hands when it came to releasing the records of her tenure as First Lady.

She knew there would information there that would contradict her debate points.

Like her early support of NAFTA.