AFL/CIO says Gephardt is a "done deal" for VP

[JNB]

 People need to stop using WSJ op-ed talking points. The truth about free trade as an election issue is that it is an issue that people who are for it are not strongly for it. It is really not on their radar screens except in a few cases, on the other hand, the people who oppose free trade very strongly and bitterly oppose it. If Kerry plays the issue correctly, it wont hurt him in states such as NH(and remebr Buchahan did quite well in the NH primaries back in 92 running against free trade), NM or OR, but it will shore up Kerry in the upper midwest, and help him quite a bit in OH and WV, even possibly AR. Bush coming out for free trade is a VERY stupid move, since everytime he opens his mouth on the issue, more voters who are with the GOP on issues such as guns and abortion leave his camp.

  Also, the US has elected protectionists since Truman. Eisenhower was not what one could call a free trader, most of the trade policies were connected to national defense to shore up Europe at the time, and Nixon actually approved of raised tariffs.

 If this story is true, the stage is set for Kerry, but he also needs to not implode as Dukakis did in 88. Kerry has been careful in public recently, though Bush has had more than enough rope to hang himself with. Looking at Rasmussen reports, that Bush got such a small bump tells me that many people are just fed up with the lack of leadership Bush is showing.

[JNB]

 Again, being for free trade is not an issue people feel passionate about. This is how it goes, the people who support free trade are mostly in white collar jobs, they tend to be in higher income brackets, and they tend to vote more based on social issues than economic ones. Many of the so called Independents(I perfer the term media moderates since the media tries to force that this is the definiotion of moderate) who have well paying jobs fall into this camp. But that said, they are far more likley to voted base don their support for abortion rights, gay rights and the enviroment. To them, the issue of trade is just noise, so running supporting a degree of protectionism will not swing all that many Democratic/Independent voters away from Kerry.

   Conversely, there are many voters who have since the 80s voted more and more on social issues, such as their opposition to abortion, their support for gunowner rights, disgust at multi culturalism, but they also have been worried about their economic well being, the stability of their employment situation. They see Free Trade as a very raw deal, they seeing as being anti American, the notion of companies sending jobs to China, Mexico and elsewhere, while seeing, if they still have a job, their pay stagnate for many years while their cost of living just keeps on going up. This is a group that can be swayed very much so by a campigan that runs on some degree of protectionism.

   I really fail to see, based on how people vote and feel about the issue of trade, how running for fair trade will hurt Kerry. Kerry has far more to gain than lose from these positions.

[JNB]

 For one, accepted wisdom does not allways mean reality. The economic boom in the 90s and the economic growth today is more due to lose credit standards(Though today much of the growth comes from runaway gov spending) than it has to do with trade. Trade at best amounts to short term economic gains though supression of inflation at the expense of long term ecobomic growth meaning stagnating median(note I did not say average) incomes.

  Again I stand by what I said, people who support free trade really do not have that issue on their radar screen. Its a "Oh thats nice" response, people against free trade are BITTERLY opposed to it. The swing voters who support free trade as I said are more moved by social issues and the enviroment than any arguements for free trade, the swing voters against free trade have the issue of trade in the middle of their radar.

  If the GOP tries to run on a platform of being for free trade, in ads, then OH, WV and any chance at PA will be lost, and possibly AR would be lost. It might help Bush a little in NJ and CT, but not nearly enough to push him though in those states. As for WA and OR, you would be surprised how angry people there are over the job outsourcing issue.

[JNB]

 The supposed advantages of Free trade can not be condensed into a attention grabbing soundbite, not in the way "Outsourcing jobs" or "sending jobs to China" can. Yes, its nice Honda and Toyota builds cars in the US, but that was more due to the 10 year weak dollar policy from 85-95 that caused the dollar to drop more than 50% against the Yen in that period, the profits still go to the Japanese companies.


  Jmfcst, I guess it depends on how you define standard of living. Yes, because of ultra lax credit standards, people can afford more toys, but when it comes to the basics, such as housing and medical care, the median standard of living has at best, and this includes the avilbility of credit to prop people up, has gone down. The Family income to housing pirce ratio in the mid 60s was 2.7 to 1, now its almost 4, and that doesnt take into account a far greater percentage of familes have both parents working. Medical costs eat up more on ones paycheck, and despite the propaganda from sources that I wont mention again, the tax burden on the average family has only increased in the last 40 years, while federal taxes have gone down on paper, there are less exemptions, higher state,local and property taxes and higher fees for all kinds of services.

  Numbers on paper are easy to minipulate, but when one goes behind the numbers, one can see the US economy is not nearly as great as those whop would say otherwise.