Democrats head-fake on trade
Politicians want the big money (which supports “free” trade) AND votes from middle America (which doesn’t support “free” trade). What a quandry. The solution: tell middle America you want to roll back NAFTA while you vote in favor of expanding it. Problem solved!!
Sirota: We are watching something truly absurd – and that says a lot for the generally absurd realm of American politics.
Earlier this week, we saw Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) promise to call a “time out” on passing NAFTA-style trade deals if she is elected president – a promise that was made just four days after she announced she would be casting a vote to enact a vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement – the latest NAFTA-style trade deal moving through Congress.
Now, today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is criticizing Clinton for being a part of the previous administration that passed NAFTA-style trade deals. It’s fair criticism, of course – but not if you yourself have already promised to vote for the same NAFTA-style trade policy in the near future. Yes, Obama’s criticism comes just a few weeks after Obama himself declared he, too, would be voting for this same NAFTA-style trade policy moving through the Senate.
Wow, hypocrisy for votes!Let’s elect another one of these elites as President in ‘08. Let’s vote the lesser of two evils, and then after doing the same thing we have always done, let’s expect a different result.
That’s not insane, is it?
[...] the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback. ‹ Gilmore Announces 2008 US Senate Bid Where Do ETs Come From› [...]
[...] LeftHook added an interesting post today on Democrats head-fake on tradeHere’s a small reading [...]
Hang on a sec.
Either Sen. Clinton gets credit for the Clinton Administration’s successes (“Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is criticizing Clinton for being a part of the previous administration.”), which makes her far more qualified than Sen. Obama . . . or she wasn’t part of the Administration.
Can’t have it both ways.
HILL, BILL, George 1 & 2, Rudy… all the same!
DOR: Whay not have it both ways when criticizing Clinton, it’s more fun-er-er. But I don’t have to this time.
She’s stated that she supported NAFTA for years. It doesn’t matter whether NAFTA was a Rep or Dem baby.
And if sleeping with Bill Clinton qualified one for president, this would be a very crowded field.
LeftHook,
Sen. Clinton saying she supported NAFTA is like Sen. Obama saying he didn’t vote for war.
Absolutely true, but only because neither had a vote at the time.
Hey, I’ll bet we can come up with lots of things candidates would have (not) supported, if only given the chance.
David
The last few trade votes speak louder than spin!