Was Perot right?

[depakid]

“Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA. Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?”That’s what CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Hillary Clinton at last week’s Democratic presidential debate. It was a straightforward query about a Clinton administration trade policy that polls show the public now hates, and it was appropriately directed to a candidate who has previously praised NAFTA.

In response, Clinton stumbled. First she laughed at Perot, then she joked that “all I can remember from that is a bunch of charts,” and then she claimed the whole NAFTA debate “is a vague memory.” The behavior showed how politically tone deaf some Democratic leaders are.

To refresh Clinton’s “vague memory,” let’s recall that Perot’s anti-NAFTA presidential campaign in 1992 won 19 percent of the presidential vote - the highest total for any third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. That included huge tallies in closely divided regions like the Rocky Mountain West, which Democrats say they need to win in the upcoming election.

A Democrat laughing at Perot on national television is a big mistake. Simply put, it risks alienating the roughly 20 million people who cast their votes for the Texas businessman.

But Clinton’s flippant comments and feigned memory lapse about NAFTA were the bigger mistakes in that they insulted the millions of Americans (Perot voters or otherwise) harmed by the trade pact. These are people who have seen their jobs outsourced and paychecks slashed thanks to a trade policy forcing them into a wage-cutting war with oppressed foreign workers.

Why is Clinton desperate to avoid discussing NAFTA? Because she and other congressional Democrats are currently pushing a Peru Free Trade Agreement at the behest of their corporate campaign contributors - an agreement expanding the unpopular NAFTA model. When pressed, Clinton claims she is for a “timeout” from such trade deals - but, as her husband might say, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, because she simultaneously supports the NAFTA expansion.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/25/5419/

[cuke]

1. Umm, she was quite clear about her position on NAFTA

when they asked ALL THE CANDIDATES about it at one of the earlier debates. All but Kucinich had the same position - they want to amend NAFTA, not end NAFTA

"Was Perot right?" is a media "gotcha" type question which all dems should deplore, no matter which candidate it is used against. Clinton has a clear position on NAFTA. I have no idea why you're concerned about her position on Ross Perot.

[gateley]

3. Agree -- all said "amend" except Dennis who would end it.

On the other hand, Biden said the other day that we weren't actually FOLLOWING NAFTA's outline, so there MIGHT be something worth "reworking", although it's my gut feeling that Perot WAS right...

[cuke]

4. I don't get that

Why does anyone care about whether or not Ross Perot was "right", whatever that means. Remember, Perot said a lot of things.

[depakid]

8. Basically, he gave a warning that should have been listened to

All those charts and graphs that Hillary scoffed at? They were on the money- whereas the Clintons were then and are now all about the money.

The corporate money- at our expense.

[cuke]

9. "on the money?" Perot?

I think not.

[havocmom]

16. He damned well called it right on NAFTA

Think what you will. Facts are the man was right. Jobs went south. Real wages here actually have slumped.

[depakid]

21. and illegal immigration increased

as a result of driving Mexican wages down and dumping subsidized corn on Mexican markets, destroying the livelihood of millions of rural farmers throughout Central America.

[cuke]

33. Perot endorsed * in 2000. Was Perot right?

[gateley]

14. I just meant that NAFTA is causing the sort of problems that Perot talked about -

that he was right in his opinion regarding NAFTA.

[cuke]

15. That's what I don't get

Why would anyone buy into the media's dishonest framing? I've spoken about NAFTA in scores of posts without ever once having to refer to Perot

People care about NAFTA. No one really cares what Perot thinks. It's just an excuse to misportray Hillary as being unwilling to discuss the issues when the question is really a distraction from the issue which Hillary HAS been extremely clear about.

Read the OP, and tell me that isn't why this article was posted. It's not about NAFTA. There are active threads about NAFTA. This one adds nothing to the discussion about NAFTA. It's about Hillary

[gateley]

19. Oh -- I see your point and agree. I fell for it and I'm not even anti-Hillary! nt

[cuke]

23. It's one of my pet peeves

Many DUers (myself included at times) seem to think that their higher than average knowledge of politics makes them somehow immune to propoganda. It's to your credit that you are reasonable enough to see yourself from another point of view, and I'm not just saying that because of your post here. You obviously listen to what people say to you and make the effort to give it it's due consideration. That's quite rightous of you IMO.

Amd if there were any doubt that this wasn't about NAFTA, just look at the other responses. All Hillary

[depakid]

31. Sirota's article is about NAFTA, Perot AND Hillary

an whether her disingenious supporters like it or nor- this would be kind of corporatist agenda that a second Clinton administration would hoist upon us.

Her flippant response to Perot being brought up shows that clear as day.

[cuke]

35. Hillary has been clear about her position on NAFTA

Like EVERY OTHER DEM CANDIDATE (except Kucinich) she wants to amend it, not end it.

But you seem to think her position on Perot is more important. That's why you've singled her out. Her position is identical to the others, so you use Perot, as if anyone cares what Perot thinks.

[depakid]

41. I single her out because she and her husband got it enacted!

and, being as intelligent as they are- knew full well what they were doing (and are apparently unrepetent about it).

At least when Bill stabbed us in the back with the Salvage Rider (logging without laws) he had the grace to acknowledge and apologize for the mistake.

[sam sarrha]

2. she will continue the hemorrhaging of jobs, that is clear

[sailor65]

5. Perot was right on the money n/t

[L0oniX]

6. Ross Perot was right and he was media victim.

NBC CBS ABC FOX MSN CNN are our enemies.

[cloudbase]

7. They also brought us

PNTR for China. We'll be paying for that one for a while, too.

[Win]

10. Remember Perot's hockey stick?

Perot nailed it. Now were on the downslope from a very high place so look out below.

Get ready to tighten your belt's folks ... if you haven't already.

Hey, didn't Perot see a UFO too?

[scarletwoman]

11. Pretty much on that particular item, yes. k&r (nt)

[Recursion]

12. Perot is the reason Senator Clinton was First Lady

And I think those of us who deny that are, well, in denial.

Here's the sick irony of it all and part of why a lot of the "angry white man" right-wing was so angry at Clinton. Perot ran on essentially an anti-NAFTA platform, millions of people voted for it who would probably otherwise have voted for Bush, and ended up giving the election to Clinton, who worked even harder to make NAFTA happen than Bush Sr would have.

Labor, at that point, wiped the **** from its face and began a decade-long exile it's only beginning now to stir from. Keep in mind we have three forces here: old business, new business, and labor. New business loves NAFTA, labor hates it, and old business is at best ambivalent. Clinton and the rest of the DLC have been betting our party's future for a few decades now on the premise that new business is going to eventually outweigh labor. Bush Sr. represented old business, Clinton new business. Bush Jr. -- and this may surprise you -- represents new business too. His economic policies are not terribly different from Clinton's (both sides overstate the importance of Bush's tax cuts, though I'd certainly like that money back in the treasury): both do whatever they can to encourage debt-based consumerism and other forms of cheap, mobile capital.

The bourgeois part of the Left, overjoyed at having "one of our own" in the White House, raked it in from the NAFTA windfall while driving the increasingly-pressured lower and middle classes to the right (see "What's the Matter with Kansas"). Seeing no help from their traditional protectors, middle- and working-class people flocked to Gingrich in 1994 because if the government was going to collude with business, at least they could try to make government weaker.

NAFTA was just one trade accord, but it represents an entire attitude towards economics that is collapsing around us: cheap, highly mobile capital and labor. When money can move easily, it has a tendency to accumulate, and it has. Senator Clinton still, rightly or wrongly, is fixed in many people's minds (including mine) as an advocate for this economic worldview. Unless she starts touting some serious anti-corporate-managed-trade language, she's going to have trouble convincing me (and, I think, other people like me) that she has had a change of heart about this.

On a side note, this question is only a "gotcha" because we've fallen for this idiotic idea that a politician must have the same position on even peripherally related issues over the course of decades. Maybe NAFTA was the best best for 1992 but I think it's pretty clear that nobody is really satisfied with it except for people whose chief worry is keeping their diamond-tipped cane from scratching their monocle.

[MrMickeysMom]

13. Perot is also the reason Bush41 wasn't Bush42

That GIANT SUCKING SOUND of all our jobs going with the eventual introduction of NAFTA proved itself, too.

The real story of 1992 should have been Paul Tsongas and campaign finance reform. THAT will have a much longer proving trial.

Too bad he's no longer with us, isn't it?

[scarletwoman]

18. THAT is a beautiful post! I wish I could recommend it!

I think it would great if you posted this as an OP over in General Discussion.

Anyway, damn good post! :toast:

sw

[Recursion]

38. Why not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2346429

[Joanne98]

30. BRAVO dmesg!! That needs it's own thread!

You understand it perfectly! It's critical that we ask the question, are the Clintons here to take labor down the rest of the way. Pseudo politics!

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Perot was not responsible for Clinton's victory in 1992

All of the studies done show that Perot voters would have gone roughly 1/3 for Clinton 1/3 for Bush 1/3 would've stayed home. When it was a two man race, Clinton led Bush by 10 points at many times. The only difference that Perot made is that he probably gave Clinton a wider electoral college victory. But there's little doubt that he would've hit 270 without Perot's help.

[Joanne98]

17. All she can remember is a bunch of charts! That's NOT an answer!

why doesn't she just tell the truth. She doesn't CARE. She's believes in the program. WASHINGTON CONSENSUS! SUCKS!!!!!!!

[scarletwoman]

20. "She doesn't CARE. She believes in the program." Damn straight!

It just kills me seeing people calling for "party loyalty" when THIS is what our party leadership actually believes in!

I'm sick of people fantasizing about a party that only exists in their imaginations. (Yeah, I know that's harsh, but I'm not feeling diplomatic tonight.)

sw

[depakid]

22. Niether of the Clintons care

and if she manages somehow to get elected, I expect to see a LOT more of the same sorts of sell outs we saw during the last administration.

[cuke]

24. EVERY candidate except Kucinich agrees with Clinton on NAFTA

They ALL have the same policy - NAFTA should be amended, not ended

[Joanne98]

28. I never heard Edwards say that! I think he's open to more radical change.

But I will admit he's being too careful.

[cuke]

29. At one of the earlier debates

One with ALL of the candidates, including Gravel IIRC. They all said the same thing, except Kucinich who said he would immediately notify Canada and Mexico that the US was pulling out of NAFTA

[Joanne98]

32. I love DK the most, but I got to support Edwards for practical reasons.

But if I get pissed off enough and if JE doesn't start showing some fire pretty soon, I will vote with my heart, for DK!

[Joanne98]

27. We built an army in the last few years. Clawing our way back from exinction!

Thanx to the DLC and the Clintons. Then after three years of asking her if she was running and having her say "I don't know" She throws a video on the internet "I'm in to win" without asking anybody what they thought. It's an outrage. she did nothing to help us in 2002 2004 or 2006! Now she wants to be our Commander in Chief! I tell you. If she the nominee, I'll vote for her but I really don't like either one of them. They were the best damn Republicans we ever had and I'm never forgetting that. I'm hoping the democratic voters will wise up before it's too late. PLEEEZEEEE!!!!!

DEREGULATION OF...

BANKING
ENERGY
TELECOM

WELFARE REFORM!

What's next?

[Festivito]

25. Kinda right. NAFTA in Perot/Republican hands is to be bad.

Under Dems we still had plenty of jobs.

Under Perot, NAFTA would be the mess it is today.
(So he was right to be against it.)
Under Clinton, NAFTA was a flawed toothless paper.

Benefit: sustainable world peace,
through less disparity.

Should have been changed to a people first, corporation second, second attempt.

But, the people voted for Publicons.

[Alexander]

26. Perot was right on NAFTA, but he endorsed Bush in 2000.

It's up to you to determine which is worse.

[Joanne98]

34. Because he thought BUSHCO was going to assassinate his daughter!

I"m waiting for Perot to tell us the truth. Something happened. Maybe some day we will find out.

[gateley]

39. I remember at the time thinking Perot had REALLY gone over the deep end -

now I'm not so sure....

[Joanne98]

40. I know how you feel!

[Liberty Belle]

36. Yes. Perot warned if NAFTA passed we'd hear a "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico.

Everyone made fun of Perot at the time, but he was right on this issue.

NAFTA happened on Bill Clinton's watch, and it was the start of jobs being outsourced overseas, which has been catastrophic for our economy.

One more reason why I wont support Hilary Clinton in the primary.

[Didereaux]

42. but then MEXICO heard the sucking sound as the jobs went to China!

[illinoisprogressive]

37. Clinton is very much a free trader. Perot was right