| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Smoot-Obama-Hawley-Clinton |
| 2008-02-29 |
| NY Sun . . . Under dogged questioning from NBC's Timothy Russert, both presidential contenders promised to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement within six months of taking office if the agreement is not renegotiated to their liking. Mrs. Clinton even claimed, "I have been a critic of Nafta from the very beginning," which was news to the many Americans who saw her husband tout it as one of his great achievements in the White House. What a sad showing from candidates who are going around promising to repair the Bush administration's supposed alienation of our friends around the world. Is this how they plan to do it? By dealing with our neighbors and trading partners in Canada and Mexico with threats and ultimatums? If the ploy backfires, American consumers could wind up paying more for everything from Mexican avocados to Canadian lumber and maple syrup. All because the environmental standards that arch Republican Vice President Gore negotiated into Nafta aren't strong enough for the Green extremists running for the Democratic nomination this time around — and because the candidates want to use the trade agreement, rather than the International Labor Organization, to dictate labor standards in neighboring countries. Something like 1,000 economists got together to warn Congress against a protectionist surge when Messrs. Smoot and Hawley were concocting the legislations that helped tip America, nay the world, into the Great Depression. One would have thought the Democrats would have learned. . . . Between the call for a hasty retreat from Iraq and the effort to rewrite or abrogate trade deals with Canada and Mexico, the Democrats are looking like an isolationist party on the order of the Republicans of the late 1920s and early 1930s. With the economy already slowing and Democrats already threatening huge tax increases on income and payrolls, the last thing America needs is a new generation of protectionists. So the latest pronouncements add up to an enormous opportunity for Senator McCain. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #5 Huh? Presidents sign treaties but submit them to the Senate for ratification in order for them to be binding. Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but a sense of the Senate resolution said 'we ain't ratifying', so he never submitted it for action [something the Donks and the left keep ignoring while they "Blame Bush"]. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-02-29 16:25 |
| #4 Important note: As a President can only sign a treaty with the consent of the Senate, a President can only leave a treaty with that consent as well. However, if the treaty has a provision that its signers may leave it at any time, the President can do so with just an executive order, without Senate approval. But if a President did this, there is a strong possibility that the matter would end up before the Supreme Court. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-02-29 12:38 |
| #3 "I have been a critic of Nafta from the very beginning," which was news to the many Americans who saw her husband tout it as one of his great achievements in the White House. If they buy that one, they can't and aren't... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-02-29 12:19 |
| #2 Or pay attention. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-02-29 12:18 |
| #1 This article assumes that voters can tell shit from Shinola. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-02-29 12:11 |