November 19, 2007
Romney v. Clinton Contrast on Trade is Stark

At the last Democratic debate Hillary Clinton couldn't even bring herself to say one of the most significant legacies of her husband's Administration, NAFTA, was a good thing. Between that and her calls for a "time out" on trade it's depressingly clear how far the current Democratic Party has strayed from the support of free trade espoused by the DLC and Bill Clinton in the 1990's.

Symbolic of the now yawning divide between the parties, Mitt Romney came to Seattle today and lead off his press availability talking about the importance of trade in a globalized economy, while specifically speaking to Washington being the most trade dependent state in the nation. While Democratic Presidential candidates are running from free trade, Republicans want more of it.

Romney voiced support for a "level playing field" on trade, with strong support for intellectual property rights (no small issue with Microsoft and other high tech companies). He lamented the "protectionist type policies" of his Democratic competitors, a point underscored by his traveling press aide speaking to reporters afterward.

How far has the trade debate moved? The slightly left-of-center Seattle Times editorial board supports all four trade agreements pending before Congress - with Peru, Panama, Columbia, and South Korea. Such support of free trade is commonplace among major editorial boards across the country, such as the Washington Post, who are no bastions of conservative thought.

Yet the Democratic Congress has struggled to pass even the relatively non-controversial trade deals with Peru and Panama this year. The more important agreements with Columbia, a valuable Latin American ally, and with South Korea, the 13th largest economy in the world, appear dead in the water. While Clinton calls for a "time out," Romney voiced his support for all four trade deals this morning when queried.

Romney furthermore said that if current WTO negotiations are unproductive, the US should work toward a "Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom," whereby the United States would work with countries with whom it has existing bilateral trade agreements to create a broader, mutually inclusive free trade zone between interested nations. That's a far cry from a trade "time out."

Other press availability notes:

The discourse, mostly from the national reporters in tow, trying to elicit responses regarding other candidates focused on Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. No mention of John McCain or Fred Thompson by Romney or the reporters. Romney did continue his disagreement with Rudy Giuliani over New York being a sanctuary city, calling the policy "a mistake." He also pushed back on a question about Huckabee's local Evangelical support saying there are a number of issues at play in the nomination contest, citing Huckabee's record of frequent tax increases as Governor and his support of in-state tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants.

Also of note, Romney's press aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, confirmed to me Romney's support of a significant increase in H1-B visas for hard-to-find, highly skilled workers, another huge issue for Microsoft and the high tech industry. Fehrnstrom said:

It's doesn't make sense to give foreign students who come here to study computer science or engineering a visa on the condition that they leave once they graduate. Governor Romney wants to make it easier for people with skills and education to come here and stay here.

Personal observation:

I'm no fashion expert, but Mitt Romney's tailor is worth every penny.

Odd fact:

Both vehicles in Romney's entourage headed out of Seatac had Alaska plates, a peculiar find in and of itself in the Seattle area, plus Romney's rig was a "Flex Fuel" Suburban.

UPDATE: Romney's campaign has a PowerPoint up on the trade issues discussed today, including the Washington specific information.

David Postman's coverage of the event is up too.

Posted by Eric Earling at November 19, 2007 01:36 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I'm liking his immigration/illegal alien stance.

Posted by: Hinton on November 19, 2007 02:11 PM
2. This guy knows his budget and the use of money. And I hate to say it, but it seems even better than my guy, Kasich.

How about that Law of the Sea Treaty that the Dems and Bush want to push? This would be a loss of sovereignty to the USA.

Eric, you sound stoked. I would also like second dog to comment since you are at point. However, good second dogs cede to point dog if they are worth their salt and Don certainly is.

Posted by: swatter on November 19, 2007 02:37 PM
3. Hinton,
What do you like about Romney's Immigration Plan? To me, this seems like his greatest weakness, due to the fact that he may talk the talk that conservatives want to hear, but for 10 years he didn't live the talk himself. His landscaping firm knowingly employed illegal immigrants, yet he didn't even bother to check into this. He will get hit hard on this subject.

Posted by: tc on November 19, 2007 02:38 PM
4. tc, you are talking directly from the Mount of BS. You guys on the left are always talking about how horrible profiling is, and yet, you expect me, the little guy, to check every Mexican or brown skin that knows little to no English who works at my house?

He would, as would I, be immediately labeled a racist if he/we did that for every contact we have. Considering there are at least 12 million illegals, there are a lot of would be racists. Comprehendo, senor?

Posted by: swatter on November 19, 2007 03:43 PM
5. What B.S., it is a documented fact that the landscaping firm that Romney employed hired illegal immigrants. Romney's word on it was that he never asked about it. Yet, we are to believe now that he has a "get-tough" attitude on immigration. If you look at his record as govenor, it was not so "get-tough." Romney's tune on immigration changed with him deciding to run for President. Sounds like the Democratic front-runner, to me (i.e., shifting positions to match the continuency, instead of standing on a position due to principles). You add to this his shift on other issues, it makes him look weak. You know that Hillary, Inc. will try to exploit any weakness the Republican candidate's have (instead of focusing on the issues). In fact, she even try to say her campaign will have nothing to do with (just like the current Novak flap). I like Romney's experience. Being govenor and his private enterprise experiences are real assets. My comment is that he is weak on immigration due to his past positions/governence and his weak response to the landscaping business issue. It will be an issue, like Guiliani's buddy Bernie keeps cropping up. Romney needs to come up with a better response than he didn't think to check into whether the businesses he hired employed illegal immigrants, especially, given his hard stated stance on coming down on businesses employing illegal immigrants.

Posted by: tc on November 19, 2007 04:17 PM
6. Its fun to be for "free trade" (not fair trade) when your job is not at stake: "Eric Fehrnstrom, confirmed to me Romney's support of a significant increase in H1-B visas for hard-to-find, highly skilled workers,"

Students are abandoning computer science and tech - I was researching a tech topic online just yesterday and up popped Google ads for "$10/hour software design and development". And that was not the only ad.

That's our competition. No amount of "moving up the food chain", no amount of education is going to enable me or anyone else in this field to compete at that price level. Our government has chosen policies that have indeed killed off computer software development by permanent U.S. residents and citizens.

You've seen the video of the U.S. immigration lawyers talking to U.S. human resources staff, caught on tape saying "the goal is not to hire Americans" haven't you?

Republicans, Democrats and CEOs pontificate that they just don't know why American students won't study computer science. Hmmmm ... that's a real tough one, isn't it?

IT/CS is the only field of work specifically targeted by U.S. government and implementation by lawyers, HR and CEOs to eliminate U.S. workers from the field.

After hearing Romney's unquestioning and lack of skeptical questioning of the CEOs support for a big expansion in temporary imported tech workers, I will never vote for him.

Posted by: Doug on November 19, 2007 04:47 PM
7. tc,

So what do you suppose the answer would have been had Romney asked the landscaper, "are your employees legal?" Do you really think the answer would have been, "no?" Of course not. So, what more would Romney have had to do? Personally inspect everyone's papers? Call SSA or INS and run background checks on the landscaper's staff?

Romney was not the employer - he was a client. It's the EMPLOYER's job to make sure workers are legal. All you have to do is think it through to see how ridiculous this "issue" is.

Posted by: Patrick on November 19, 2007 04:57 PM
8. tc @ #5 What a bunch of crap. You really think Mitt should check the paperwork of the employees of the landscaper that he hired? Did you check the paperwork of the guy behind the counter at the minimart this morning when you got gas? Don't bother writing long posts, when you open with such a foolish line. Few people will want to wade through the rest when the first line is such nonsense.

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 19, 2007 10:23 PM
9. Thanks guys, now maybe tc will come off the Mount of BS for a while.

Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 06:44 AM
10. I call BS on all you that think Mitt couldn't do anything. As long as we hire contractors that don't abide by the laws we are just as guilty as them at supporting illegal immigrants. I don't know what was going through Mitt's mind, but what I would do is ask for confirmation that the contractor meets all federal and state hiring laws, if the contractor can not meet these requirements then, don't hire them. Until we start asking for proof, the contractors will keep on skating by. With regards to landscaping, I would perform myself, or the next best thing would be to hire a neighborhood kid to perform the work. It is great entry level work. We had one family in our old neighborhood, who did happen to be Mormon (but that is really beside the fact), but their teenage son and a buddy started their own landscape business in high school. I would much rather support students learning how to earn a living and start a business than a contractor who disobeys the law. For painting our house, we hired College Pro painters, who did a great job. College Pro is a company that works with college students to provide summer jobs, where they run their own painting contract business. The students learn hiring and management skills, how to bid on jobs, etc. It is great experience. Again, we will not solve the immigration problem by stating a bunch of words, we need to start holding the people who hire the workers responsible and demanding proof from them. We need to be willing to not hire those contractors that disobey the laws. Until we do that, the problem will continue.

Posted by: tc on November 20, 2007 07:42 AM
11. I just don't get why we worry about these trade agreements on a bilateral basis like this--it makes no sense. We should just unilaterally create a free trade agreement for the entire world. After all, all barriers to free trade that we put up do is raise our personal costs of products. We don't harm other countries by not buying their imports as much, we just leave lower prices for their own interal consumption. In other words, it is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Posted by: Marc on November 20, 2007 07:54 AM
12. Thanks, tc. Good comments. How many years ago was that contract? I am not even sure it was in the national conscience then.

Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2007 08:27 AM
13. tc.. You do understand that hiring someone under the age of 18 to run power epuipment is a crime. The underage kid also doesn't have a contractors lic. or insurance. Again, Much to do about nothing.

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 20, 2007 09:42 AM
14. Moondoggie:
I don't see anywhere on http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/TeenWorkers/Prohibited/default.asp where teenagers can operate lawn equipment.

Swatter:
Which contract were you referring to? I had College Pro paint our house about 4 years ago now, but they are in business every summer. Note: They employee college aged students, so moondoggie's concern would not relate (i.e., employees are over 18 years old). The neighbor's kid that started his own landscaping business was about 3 or 4 years ago. He has since graduated from High School. If you are talking about Mitt's contract, I am not sure of the exact dates of it. My concern with Mitt was his response to the question. A better response would be to acknowledge that he didn't check up on the landscape contractor, but now would (given his hard-line stance he is taking on business' hiring of illegal immigrants).

Posted by: tc on November 20, 2007 10:38 AM
15. Mitt is the most accomplished of any presidential candidate. He has the desire and ability to actually accomplish things in Washinton. Politics is the art of the possible. Too many candidates talk of their dreams if they ran the zoo, but they never happen. We have an opportunity here to get real results. I hope we are smart enough to sieze the opportunity.

Posted by: Bobinator on November 20, 2007 10:44 AM
16. Well said Doug. There are two many ivory tower Republicans out there that are willing give tax breaks to large multinational corporations in hope of a return on the investment. These corporations pass along a few bread crumbs in return. The average middle class American gets higher taxes and loses their job. What a deal!

Posted by: M&M on November 20, 2007 02:34 PM
17. I've been saying for some time now: Romney has the most clear path to the nomination.

And he is only bolstering that every week.

He has a great ground game, he is sharp on all the issues, and he is winning in most of the big early states.

Fred is still atop my list, but he is going to have a tough time beating Mitt at this point.

People who think his Mormon religion will have a significant effect in a general election are projecting, I think. Very few conservatives/Republicans would refuse to vote for Mitt just because of his religion, should he win the nomination, and most of the rest of the country doesn't care. It is quite possible, however, that it will hurt his chances of winning the nomination.

Posted by: pudge on November 21, 2007 04:02 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?