Good Friend: "GORE IS 50/50 - AL has set this up so he can jump either way in the fall.

[kpete]

NEWSWEEK - Howard Fineman
Running Hard By Staying Out

Gore is a deep-dyed Democrat; the real question is whether he will be a late entrant for the party nomination. He is "50-50," according to one of his closest friends and financial backers. On the one hand, Gore inquires about Manhattan office space for his business and charity ("It has to be a 'green' building," said this source, who didn't want to be named discussing Gore's affairs). On the other hand, he keeps his face in front of big donors, as he did at a recent dinner in Miami. Gore is all the rage among corporate executives, who see wisdom—and profits—in going green, and who appreciate Gore's prescience. "Al has set this up so he can jump either way in the fall," said the close friend. "If there is an opening, I say he goes."

more at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881809/site/newsweek/page/2/

[wakeme2008]

1. IMHO the recent War Vote will push him into running

No matter what the Dems in Congress say or voted on, IMHO they could have blocked giving * everything he wanted. But they didn't.

[Tesla]

2. We can only hope!

[Double T]

3. Still waiting for a strong leader to emerge from the declared and.........

yet to declare Democratic Presidential Candidates.

[mconvente]

4. I sure hope so

Al just won't flat out say "no, I'm not running". And I don't think Al is an attention-seeker at all, so it's not as if he is being ambiguous just to keep his name in the news. I really think with the latest Dem capitulation that we will see candidate Gore by September - maybe earlier

[Prophet 451]

13. Hope so

I don't think he's attention seeking either. He seems genuinely undecided. I might not agree with him on everything (for example, I think his free trade ideas are deeply misguided) but it would be nice to see him jump into the race.

[sabbat hunter]

28. i did notice

that on a recent TV appearance Al Gore seems to have lost quite a bit of weight. that could be an indicator as well. getting in shape for the big run.

[helderheid]

5. please...please...please...

RUN!

[Neshanic]

32. Amen to that...Please run...I want my President Gore!

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I'm reading Assault, and nothing would make me happier

than to have Gore in the White House where he has belonged for these last 6 years. I'll write elsewhere at greater length about my reactions to the book; suffice it to say that he blows me away with the breadth of his intellect and the depth of his compassion. Bill Clinton is brilliant and...well...opportunistic. Gore is equally brilliant, and principled. I just wish to Hell he could have showed his true colors in 2000. Sadly, the public never knew him. Hell, I never knew him even though I supported him.

We need a Jefferson, we need a Lincoln, we need a Gore.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. IF there's an opening? It's so wide open....he could walk away with the nomination.

PLEASE RUN, Al!

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Hey, that's better than the odds I've been speculating.

I've been saying I think 60-40 against. But I would (obviously) love to see him run.

[Dr.Phool]

9. I just put that same sticker on my truck yesterday.

Then drove up to the book store to buy "The Assault on Reason".

Run Al!

[Kurovski]

10. K&R. (nt)

[yurbud]

11. Has he changed his views on trade? I remember NAFTA debate with Perot

[Mabus]

19. You've made a blanket statement.

Don't forget that the agreement had already been signed by GHWB and Clinton/Gore got environmental and labor agreements added to NAFTA before it was passed by a bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate. So, what statement or statements in particular did Gore make in the debate with Perot that promoted you to ask your question about his views on trade?

on edit: I'm reading Gore's book "The Assault on Reason" right now and since he advocates actually discussing issues I was prompted to ask my question. I would really like to know what you're wanting to know and maybe we can figure out the answer together.

[yurbud]

20. how have those labor elements worked out? By the way, I would vote for Gore over any

of the top three candidates in the race now.

But since it's looking more like he'll run, it might be time to talk about what he will actually advocate and do as president.

[Mabus]

22. I edited my earlier post and my quick response (I'd really like to talk about this)

You might want to read it.

But with nothing but my own memory to rely on I'll answer, we can get more in depth on this if you want. I know the subject comes up and we should probably look at the information we have available to get a more definitive answer.

Anyway, I remember a Utne article about the pollutants along the Rio Grande and Mexicans living in cardboard boxes along the border while working for Motorola putting together color television sets. I also remember a commerical (Merrill Lynch in the OKC market) that asked people for their cars so they could be "resold to the Mexican market". I always figured he meant "we can resell your broken down, environmentally dangerous car in another country". I also seem to remember that back in the 80's and 90's most of our manufacturers were going to Mexico because of cheap labor, few if any environmental controls and no employee benefits. Now, those jobs have gone to China.

I don't think that NAFTA was intended to mean wage parity. I don't think it was the best piece of legislation that Congress has ever passed but I think it was the best that could be done at the time. The RRR came into power and so did the Clinton/Gore administration's ability to get further modifications (stronger enforcement, restrictions, amendements, etc) to the agreement to make it stronger in some areas or change it in others went out the door.

Finally, don't forget that in that part of Gore's job at the time was to be Clinton's attack dog. Clinton was in charge. He listened to Gore but ultimately Gore was the VP, not the president.

[yurbud]

23. the issue isn't wage parity but whether it helps people in either or both countries

besides those who are already rich.

I get the impression that it doesn't.

[Mabus]

27. It's complicated but it appears that some peope were helped and some weren't

The rich always seem to get richer and they usually do it at the expense of those who can least afford it. To be truthful, I've been looking at different articles on the internet including IMF reports and blogs. It's sometimes hard to find sources that can be trusted for accurate information. I found the following excerpt from the National Bureau on Economic Research (which I know nothing about). Before the article there is a quote "Wage gains were largest for more educated workers living close to the United States and were smallest for less-educated workers living in southern Mexico."

In What Has Happened to Wages in Mexico Since NAFTA? Implications for Hemispheric Free Trade (NBER Working Paper No. 9563), Hanson divides his analysis into two parts. In the first part he examines the substantial research already done on NAFTA's impact on the Mexican labor market in the 1980s. The evidence suggests that tariff reductions increased relative wages for skilled workers, increased foreign investment, raised relative demand for skilled labor, and reductions in tariffs and quotas altered inter-industry wage differentials. Mexico's economic opening thus appears to have raised the skill premium and reduced industry rents going to labor. It also appears to have increased wages in states along the U.S. border relative to the rest of the country.

Hanson concludes from this analysis that Mexico's comparative advantage in low-skill activities was not as strong as many had thought. Trade liberalization exposed Mexico's vulnerability in very low-end manufacturing; thus producers of basic consumer goods in this area lost out to imports, especially from China and from elsewhere in Asia. However, Mexico appeared to have a cost advantage in assembly services for the U.S. economy. Therefore, Mexican manufacturing in effect reoriented itself from producing simple consumer products to being a subcontractor for more upstream industries in the North American economy. Meanwhile, the concurrent loosening of restrictions on foreign direct investment allowed plants in Mexico to become part of North American production networks, and this too played a role in the change in wage patterns.

In the second part of his study, Hanson uses Mexican census data from 1990 and 2000 to examine changes in wages over the period in which NAFTA was implemented. His most striking finding is that wage gains were largest for more educated workers living close to the United States and were smallest for less-educated workers living in southern Mexico. Hanson also notes that the dramatically increased openness of Mexico's economy to the rest of the world as seen over the past two decades was concurrent with shocks to wage levels. These include periodic if temporary wage declines (mostly related to such matters as Mexico's macroeconomic and currency problems), wage growth along the U.S.-Mexico border relative to wages in the rest of Mexico, and a steady increase in skills in the country. All of this, Hanson observes, resulted in a general increase in wage disparity in Mexico.

What then are the implications of the Mexican experience for the rest of Latin American wage structures in view of the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, which is to be implemented by 2005? For one thing, Hanson notes, prior to the trade reform in Mexico, the country had relatively high tariffs on less-skill-intensive industries. These industries thus bore the brunt of adjustment to Mexico's economic and trade liberalization. But similar tariff adjustments following an FTAA, says Hanson, are unlikely to be common in the rest of Latin America. One reason is that many countries have already liberalized their unilateral trade. Colombia, for example, reduced its trade barriers a decade ago, with special tariff reductions in its less-skill-intensive industries. Thus the shock of trade reform related to tariff reductions in low-skill industries, Hanson theorizes, may already have been absorbed in much of Latin America.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9563.html

I think there are a lot of factors that come into play when trying to look for answers to questions like "who benefitted and who got the shaft?". I don't know enough to even begin to answer the question and, frankly, the more I read the more I don't know. There are some reports from various institutions that say it was a good thing (they cite the increase of trade) and there are some reports that say it was a bad thing. Is the average person better off because of NAFTA? I don't know. Were jobs lost? Yes. Were some jobs created? Yes. I think it depends upon what particular answers you're looking for.

[yurbud]

29. IMF is not going to be helpful. It's purpose is to screw countries

read up on neoliberalism.

Corpwatch.org is a good place to start.

[Mabus]

36. Oh, okay, I'll go do all the research and get back to you - NOT!

You brought up the subject you should be the one to defend it. You said you remembered the debate and I asked you what in particular about that debate you had a problem with. So far, all you've done is talk about generalities and what you think. Admittedly, so did I (reference to Utne and my memory) but at least I tried to find some information but it is really, really, hard to find information when you're not giving me anything concrete to look up.

If you want to discuss an issue, especially when you post something as cryptic as "Has he changed his views on trade?" but don't provide any specifices about what you think Gore's position was or what you think was wrong with his views. NAFTA and the accompanying Clinton added labor and environmental legislation are huge bills.

So let's start over, what do you think Gore's position on trade was back in this 1992-1993 period that was so offensive to you. Please be specific.

[yurbud]

37. If you have a link to the transcripts, that would be great. Bottom line was Gore fought for NAFTA

and at the time I though Perot was a kook.

He still is a kook--but he happened to be right on that issue.

[Mabus]

39. and you still can't point to either what Gore's views were or what you don't like about them

What was it about Gore's views on trade that you don't like? In particular what was it about Gore's views concerning NAFTA's trade provisions that you disagree with?

I hear people trying to hold Gore accountable for NAFTA quite a bit, yet no one is able to state what they think his views were and what bothers them about his views.

[WinkyDink]

33. I can tell you that all of labor worked their rear-ends off for Gore in PA. in 2000.

AND won it for him.

Labor is with Al all the way.

[phiddle]

21. Absolutely incorrect---Clinton negotiated NAFTA

The signing was in 94 with Salinas of Mexico, and Chretien of Canada. Because many democrats (Gephardt, et al) felt that the labor protections were not strong enough, and the environmentalist wing of the democratic did not like the weak environmental standards, Clinton had to cobble together a coalition of most of the congressional Republicans, plus some Blue Dog Democrats to get it passed. Gore, both in the debate with Perot and working with legislators, was very active in promoting NAFTA. I don't know if that was truly his personal opinion, or if he was being a good soldier for Clinton. I would like to know his current view.

[Mabus]

25. Pictures of GHWB signing NAFTA (from his official library)

You might want to take this issue up with GHWB.



P36686-14
NAFTA Initialing Ceremony, San Antonio, TX.
07 Oct 92
Photo Credit: George Bush Presidential Library



President Bush signs the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Sec. Lynn Martin, William Reilly, and Sec. Robert Mosebacher witness the event.
17 Dec 92
Photo Credit: George Bush Presidential Library

[phiddle]

31. We're both right. From Wikipedia:

"The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).<3> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<4> Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification on November 1993."

So Clinton negotiated the side agreements that enabled it to slide through Congress. It was during this period that Gore was out trying to gain public support for NAFTA.

[Mabus]

35. And it is exactly what I had said before (agreement already signed/Clinton added amendments)

I simplified my understanding of its history with: "Don't forget that the agreement had already been signed by GHWB and Clinton/Gore got environmental and labor agreements added to NAFTA before it was passed by a bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate."

Compare my statement above with a quote from the wiki: "Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC."

I think I was pretty damned close the first time. But thanks for helping to clarify it and help my argument.

[gulfcoastliberal]

12. I hope he runs as a "last minute" entry

That way the media carnival barkers have less time to shout their nonsense and lies.

[kenny blankenship]

24. Toad Gingrich will probably enter late as well to carry the standard for NeoFascism.

the nominees of both parties might not be announced candidates for 6 more months.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Having read it over the weekend,

I believe "The Assault on Reason" is Al Gore's best book and I loved his best selling "Earth in the Balance" and Academy Award winning, Nobel Prize nominated "An Inconvenient Truth" as landmark books.

"The Assault on Reason" gets to the root of our current dysfunctional representative democracy using history, philosophy, psychology and the effects of radio, and television on our society, it's everything we talk about and much more.

Al Gore loves our democracy so much, he not only cites his website, he even cites a web site that is critical of him, not agreeing with him on the climate crisis.

Al also holds Bush/Cheney to account for their crimes and or abuses exceptionally well, citing many Republicans, not to mention using logic to make a compelling case.

"The Assault on Reason" also provides the solutions to our dilemma, it's us, the Internet, bloggers, the American People, defending net neutrality and free speech, taking us back to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt among many others. We are the new "Common Sense", we are the new Thomas Paine.

Whether you support Al Gore for President as I do, or not, you owe it to your selves and your families to read this book, it's most powerful and enlightening!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. I hope that he comes back to take what is really his

the presidency!!!!

[jillan]

16. I wish he would do it sooner than later

So the rest of the candidates could stop wasting millions of dollars.

It makes me sick how much they spend on campaigns.

[politicasista]

26. Me too

I hope he runs, but if not, I understand.

[DemGa]

17. The deciding factor is the people's movement behind him

He's said he can't do it alone. My view is Gore is definitely running.

[mopinko]

18. the book tests the waters

if it is accepted, and truthfully reported, i think he will run. telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is his first step, imho. and who else can even get to that starting point? none of them.

[StarryNite]

30. We sure do need him.

The world needs him.

[Renew Deal]

34. Gore has many positives that he didn't have a few years ago.

He is now a strong figure in this country. He's got a cause. He was correct about the war. He's strong enough to end it. He's smarter and more charismatic. He's got balls. All important characteristics that can finish the job of 2000.

[lse7581011]

38. PLEASE let it be so!

And let this man assume the office he has already won!