My contribution just went to the ONE candidate who will end Clinton's NAFTA.

[WA98296]

Actions taken to SAVE this country are far more important to me than personal appearance.

Vote on the Issues.

[CountAllVotes]

1. one thing about DK

he has been against NAFTA and the WTO for many years. Think back to 2004 - that was his agenda and he said that "it would all come down to the war". He was so right. I've contributed to his campaign as well (as I did in 2004 also).

DK is the only real Democrat running IMO.

:kick:

[WA98296]

3. "DK is the only real Democrat running IMO. " Sad but true, At least we have ONE! (:

[bvar22]

10. "DK is the only real Democrat running IMO. " Sad but true

DK is the ONLY candidate who speaks for me and ALL Americans who work for a living.

Edwards has been borrowing a lot from Dennis lately.

[eridani]

13. The better DK does in the debates--

--the more the other candidates might think that Edwards is on to something there.

[eleny]

2. Amen

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Me too

I don't have much cash, but it went to DK.

[CountAllVotes]

5. kick

:dem: :kick:

[area51]

6. DK is the best candidate.

He actually cares about the American people, is against NAFTA, WTO, etc, and is the only candidate fighting for single-payer, universal healthcare, the one thing that could save American lives.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. I'm From Ohio, And we love Kucinich....but

Does NAFTA really sound like a Democratic idea?
It was sitting on Clinton's desk before he and Hillary unpacked the linen, with Congressional Repubs pointing frantcally at it and demanding action.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2582

On December 17, 1992, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and U. S. President George Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), marking the end of a process that began on February 5, 1991, when the three leaders announced they would negotiate the trade accord.

Bill Clinton was roundly critisized for "taking the teeth out of a great Republican bill" at the time.





I call it "GHW Buxh's NAFTA"

[WA98296]

8. CLINTON signed it. Hillary will NOT say she'll end the travesty, because

She will Not. So, she will not receive a vote from me, even if Satan himself runs against her.

[JohnnyRingo]

9. I'm not pushing a Hillary candidacy

I'm just tired of the right wing myth that NAFTA was Clinton's baby.

Hate Hillary if you want, I don't care (really), but as a lifelong union member who was on the protest front at the time, I ask that you please put the bulk of blame where it belongs for NAFTA.

NAFTA has been attacked by everyone from Limbaugh to Hannity, while knowing all along that the bill originated with George HW Buxh and further facilitated by his son, who was Governor of Texas at the time:

FORT WORTH (AP) - The Teamsters Union has set its sights on Gov. George W. Bush over his support for lifting a moratorium on Mexican freight trucks in Texas and other southwestern states.

At issue is a provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement that allows Mexican trucks to haul goods anywhere in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.

Under NAFTA, the trucks were to be allowed into the region in December 1995 and anywhere in the United States after 2000.

But implementation was delayed a year ago by the Transportation Department amid concerns that the trucks didn't meet safety and weight requirements.

Transportation Department spokesman Bill Schulz said last week that the United States and Mexico are attempting to reach an agreement on the safety issues, but he was unsure when the moratorium might be lifted.

Nonetheless, the Teamsters have renewed their attack on Bush, saying his support for the provision will destroy Texas jobs and endanger highway safety.

"The reason we're targeting George Bush on this is because he is on record as supporting NAFTA,'' Teamsters spokesman Rand Wilson told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "And we believe allowing trucks from Mexico in the United States would be a threat to highway safety.''

In half-page advertisements appearing in some Texas newspapers this month, the truckers' union says Mexico's freight trucks are overweight, underinsured and driven by underpaid truckers. The ad includes a photograph of a highway accident with the message "Don't let George W. Bush destroy highway safety and good Texas jobs.''

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/120196/bush.htm

April 17 2001
Bush Wants to Expand NAFTA:
In the guise of free trade with Latin and South America, President Bush is preparing to ship more American jobs south of the border in the near future.

Bush is traveling to Quebec this week to promote a plan to create a Western Hemisphere free-trade zone, as well as scheduling meetings earlier with Chile's president, Ricardo Lagos, and with Argentina President Fernando De la Rua on the same subject.

Such a zone would expand NAFTA to include Latin and South America. If Bush has his way, American workers, already reeling from jobs lost to NAFTA, will see more factories close their doors and move south for cheaper labor and to escape the U.S.'s tougher labor laws.

"American workers don't mind competing when the competition is fair," President Ed Hill said, "But the competition must meet the basic standards of worker rights, including freedom of association and the right to bargain."

Bush signs NAFTA to cheers protests. (President George Bush North American Free Trade Agreement)
19921218; WWD
Pres George Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico at the Organization of American States headquarters in Washington, DC. Bush sees NAFTA as the first step towards a hemispheric trading block. The treaty signing was praised by proponents of free trade but was denounced by labor unions and proponents of protectionism. Pres-elect Bill Clinton has expressed support for NAFTA but feels that it needs to be rewritten to provide greater protections for labor and the environment.

IV. THE NAFTA LABOR SIDE ACCORD
As initially conceived and negotiated, NAFTA included no provisions for labor rights. In 1991, President George Bush told the United States Congress:

Mexico's labor standards are comparable to those in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries. The Mexican Constitution of 1917, as implemented through various pieces of legislation, provides a comprehensive set of rights and standards for workers in all sectors of Mexico. What have been lacking are budgetary resources to permit effective enforcement of the constitution and legislative measures.35

As Bush pointed out, Mexican law protects a broad array of labor rights. In practice, however, these are not enforced and are routinely flouted by employers in Mexico. Similarly, as a recent Human Rights Watch report shows, problems of weak enforcement of labor law protections for workers' rights are also evident in the United States.36

According to the Bush Administration, the trade agreement would itself generate the economic resources necessary to enable the Mexican government to overcome the technical problem of funding enforcement of the country's labor laws. Yet, in 1991 politics in the United States forced the labor rights issue to the top of the debate on trade. The Bush Administration needed a renewal of fast-track negotiating authority to move forward with the NAFTA trade talks. Such authority would enable the president to negotiate a trade accord that would be submitted to Congress for a straight yes-or-no vote, thereby avoiding a situation in which the president would be required to renegotiate with trading partners those parts of an agreement that Congress wished to change.

Senators and representatives in the U.S. Congress took the opportunity provided by the fast track debate to raise concern about the impact on the United States of inadequate labor standards in Mexico.37 In response, the administration assured them that any trade agreement with Mexico would include "new initiatives to expand U.S.-Mexico labor cooperation," including labor standards.38 Although it was initially unclear what such initiatives would comprise, the Bush Administration subsequently proposed to establish a commission to discuss labor issues arising between Mexico and the United States.39

President Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992, but sending it to the Senate for ratification would be up to the next president. Facing stiff questions from labor unions-a core Democratic Party constituency-candidate Bill Clinton declared that he would support NAFTA if it included side agreements on labor rights and the environment.

In a much-cited speech in 1992, just before the presidential election, Clinton stated that NAFTA, as negotiated, did "nothing to reaffirm our right to insist that the Mexicans follow their own labor standards, now frequently violated." After Clinton's speech, President Carlos Salinas of Mexico expressed his willingness to address concerns beyond the specific trade issues dealt with in the main accord.40

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm

[Solon]

11. The fact of the matter is that it was a BIPARTISAN bill....

GHWBush may have signed it initially, but Bill Clinton did very little to prevent it from passing and actually going into effect. So the blame falls on both, equally. Not to mention that it was a campaign issue, and the Clinton campaign officially supported it, and continued to support it throughout his administration.

[KaptBunnyPants]

12. All other candidates want to modify NAFTA, or merely just start enforcing it.

Kucinich is the only Dem candidate to offer a pull out from the treaty entirely. It might have mainly Republican support, but all of the others support it at least in principle.