Saturday, March 01, 2008

Immigration, Trade, and Presidential Politics

A slightly off-topic aside in the face of the looming presidential primary:

The Republicans don't want immigration. Now the Democrats don't want trade.

Somebody tell me: Who do I vote for if I support free markets for BOTH trade and labor? Is it only possible to elect someone with an isolationist foreign policy in the 2008 presidential election? I used to think this was parody:


OTOH, on this matter perhaps we should blame Ohio. In general I don't trust states whose names contain more vowels than consonants (I'm talking to you, Maine!).

6 comments:

The Local Crank said...

Have no fear; the only realistic candidate who might have done something about the wholesale evisceration of the US economy via "free" trade was John Edwards and you saw how far that got him. Both Democrats (thanks to Bill Clinton) and Republicans (thanks to their natural inclination towards corporate profits) are now fully wedded to the touching belief that you can somehow be an economic superpower without actually making anything and with your only job growth in delivering pizzas and repairing foreign consumer electronics, thereby turning America into nothing but a supply depot for dwindling resources and a market for finished products, in other words a colony.

Anonymous said...

In the recent past, America has relied upon innovation to keep ourselves viable in a worlk economy. Thanks to a miserable education system, that too is quickly fading away.

We've even taken to encouraging immigration from other countries based upon intellectual power.

Sadly we're rapidly becoming a second rate power and our government hasn't got a clue what to do about it.

Our leaders have got to do more than encourage student loans!

Anonymous said...

It's simply the winning politics of fear. Note Ms Clinton's latest TV adds...

Anonymous said...

REAL NEWS you won't see on TV (Dick Cheney's NEXt Big Energy SCAM):

Obama is the pre-packaged "New & Improved Chocolate Flavor" Presidential candidate PRODUCT - being hyped & PUSHED by GE and its WHOLLY-Owned subsidiaries NBC & MSNBC...along with Westinghouse & its subsidiary CBS...while slamming the Clintons all day every day. (Assisted by...CNN/FOX/ and a lot of newspaper & radio media dependent on advertising$$.)

GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet.

Obama is IN with the Nuclear Industry: Excelon Corp of Illinois has been one of his largest contributors from his entry into politics to the present. Excelon is the largest nuke operator on the planet;owns Con-Ed of NY; more nukes in Illinois than any other state.

GE, Westinghouse, Excelon & 3 consortiums of other companies are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants. Their Wholly-Owned & Wholly Influenced "News" media are selling the Obama Product because Obama is in favor of Nukes.

In 2005 Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R.6) which ENABLED the nuke industry to make its Plans to build 29 new nukes-by Guaranteeing Taxpayer Payback of any nuke loans that default. (No nukes were built for the past 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky)

Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill-despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default on the nuke loans at 50% or greater. (Does that sound like...GOOD...JUDGMENT to You?)

[NY Times has several articles about the nuke plans & a map showing all 29 locations; Wikipedia covers the subject]

Clinton Voed AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill and said her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.

? "Its about the FUTURE...Turn The PAGE" ?

Nope. ts about Turning the PAGE BACK to the PAST: Obsloete 50 yr old nuke power plants-the dirtiest most expensive kind/centrally-controlled MONOPOLY POWER-instead of inventing New, Clean, Green De-Centralized inexpensive Energy.

An ad campaign has already begun on the TV media to re-package & re-name nuclear power plants as: GREEN & CLEAN -for-everybody too young to remember the 1970's anti-nuke movement and all the Bad News about nuclear energy.

Don't be taken in by the ad campaigns-Google:'nuclear waste dumps' & read about the hundreds of BILLIONS of gallons of nuke waste at the Hanford Washington dump; 140 tons of plutonium stored at Rocky Flats, Colorado; Barnwell, South Carolina; leaking into groundwater and rivers; plutonium released into the air around Denver from 500 instances of fires at Rocky Flats; stored on-site at every nuke reactor in America...presenting hundreds of potential "dirty bomb" targets for terrorists.

Is it true that Obama takes No Contributions/NO MONEY from Registered Federal Lobbyists?

Yes. It's a LawyerSpeak/Trick of: Speaking a Small truth covering up a Big Lie.

Nope, doesn't take money from REGISTERED FEDERAL Lobbyists.

DOES take money from STATE Lobbyists, Not Registered Lobbyists, AND the wives, husbands, law partners, aunts, uncles cousins...of Registered Federal Lobbyists. Gets money from the same big corporate donors as any other candidate.

Obama's campaign finances are involved in the prosecution (by Patrick Fitzgerald)and trial of his friend of 20 years Antoin Rezko. Some of the funds... allegedly...extorted by Rezko went into Obama's campaign coffers. Curiously, Iraqi Power Plants amd fraud are also involved in Rezko's trial. (Google: Obama -Rezko- Alsammarae-Auichi- IRAQ POWER PLANTS)

GE & the same wealthy people who sold the "new & improved vanilla flavor" Presidential PRODUCTS: Reagan & Bush/s 1 & 2 - are behind the massive ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN to sell you OBAMA.

At the beginning of this campaign season a large majority of voters were looking forward to electing Clinton. Then Obama stepped in and started the dirty campaigning that has created the DIVISION he so hypocritically decries. Obama played "the race card" so he could win in South Carolina. He was caught red-handed playing that race card-but the media blamed it on Clinton-even though they all knew they were pushing the Big Lie.

With nearly ALL "the mainstream media" pimping for Obama & slamming, smearing, and lying about the Clintons-it is truly amazing enough voters have seen thru the Media-Created Obama "movement"-for Clinton to STILL be in the race.

The only way a very small minority can CONTROL a very large Majority is: DIVIDE & CONQUER-Exactly the same Republican Strategy/Deception they have successfully pulled for most of the last century And ALL of this century, so far. . .

GE, the nuke industry/wealthy have hedged their bets & they will get Billions of your money via 29 new nukes IF either Obama or McCain is elected President.

Ladies & Gentlemen, Dads & Moms buy nothing GE & Westinghouse are selling - not Obama, not a washing machine, a dishwasher, 29 nuke power plants, or a garbage disposer .... because there is no garbage disposer for Radioactive Nuke Waste. Do not allow them to poison the earth and your children anymore.

Anonymous said...

Excellent comment "REAL NEWS you won't see on TV (Dick Cheney's NEXt Big Energy SCAM)"

I couldn't agree with you more.

Obama's resume is thin as pointed out by
Thomas V. DiBacco of the Orlando Sentinel:



"Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.



Even his 70 percent vote margin in his 2004 U. S. Senate bid cries for a downgrade. He defeated a GOP nobody, perennial candidate for public office, Alan Keyes, who took over the candidacy after the real winner of the primary stepped aside as a result of a sex scandal.



Obama's speaking ability is exceptional only if the denominator of expectation is low. Shouting is scarcely an oratorical plus, nor are the "ands" and "uhs" that punctuate Obama's often rambling extemporaneous remarks.



Nor do campaign stops provide concise specifics about his proposals, more akin as they are to celebrity, touchy-feely, anything-I-say-is-OK performances. His safe-harbor, oratorical retreat ("and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America") is overused and overvalued. As for Obama's lifting sentences from other speakers, at a minimum that illustrates laziness."

source:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-dibacco2608feb26,0,7365559.story

Debbie said...

Have no fear: both Democratic candidates are blowing hot air; look at their records, they have no intentions to curb the perpetration of the failed NAFTA model...whole lotta talk. They both voted for Oman's pact: and both didn't vote on Peru, but publicly supported it; in fact both have been NOT voting on a bunch of key things in the past year+ ---there ought to be a law!

And you CAN actually blame Ohio, as they have one of the strongest coalitions educating and lobbying to correct the fallout of free trade: loss of jobs and loss of sovereignty.

I miss Edwards too...and if you don't think Clinton is also tied to energy--you ain't looking.

I have no candidate. (Ralph's peeps just called me yesterday to see if we could raise $150,000 in TX...to start a petition drive in 2 days to collect 90,000 sigs in 60 days--which you would have had to start planning for at least a month ago *sigh*).

Keeping it local.