Posted on 03/08/2004 4:57:53 AM PST by ZeitgeistSurfer
RALEIGH, N.C. -- John Edwards returned to a hometown hero's welcome last Wednesday after losing 29 out of 30 contests, good enough for runner-up to John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination. While Sen. Edwards was given up for dead politically little more than a month ago, one public poll shows that today he would carry North Carolina against President Bush. More troubling to the Republicans than a transitory survey is what ails George W. Bush here.
It is not the war in Iraq, strongly supported in a state known for patriots and warriors. The GOP worries about the sea change here on international trade created by job losses blamed on foreign competition. Edwards' lurch toward protectionism at the end of his presidential campaign reflects the Democratic Party abandoning its heritage of free trade. But it is Republicans who have trouble coping with the new reality.
Republican politicians are chilled by a story making the rounds in the state's political circles. A delegation of North Carolina factory owners recently went to Washington to plead for relief from foreign competition. They returned complaining that the president's agents responded with the ''free trade'' mantra. Their verdict: They could no longer support Bush. North Carolina may be changing from a certain ''red'' state (carried by Bush with 56 percent in 2000) to a potential battleground with hopes for capturing Edwards' Senate seat diminishing.
Edwards, a flashy multimillionaire trial lawyer new to politics, looked like an extinguished shooting star when this year began. He had dropped out of seemingly sure defeat for Senate re-election to bolster his flagging presidential campaign. Now, after the revival and end of his presidential candidacy, prominent Republicans fear he would win a second term if he re-entered the race (which nobody expects). That adds credence to claims by his supporters that Edwards on the ticket could hand Kerry the state's 15 electoral votes otherwise destined for Bush.
Although Edwards voted consistently against ratifying trade agreements, he did not trumpet the protectionist line until the final stages of his race for president. He lacked sufficient time for this theme to take root in economically depressed Ohio as he hoped, but Edwards the protectionist is well-received back home.
The national economic recovery has lagged in North Carolina, which for years had enjoyed low unemployment and a vibrant economy. The classic case is the solidly Republican Hickory area, which in 1999 encountered a labor shortage but now suffers from manufacturing job losses in textile, furniture and fiber optics. Foreign competition is blamed.
Erskine Bowles, a rich Charlotte investment banker who lost badly to Elizabeth Dole for the Senate in 2002 and now is trying to fill Edwards' seat, has felt this mood change. Bowles was no mere foot soldier in the globalist army. As President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, he managed passage of fast-track authority that enables congressional approval of international trade agreements.
Bowles is saying farewell to all that and plays the protectionist card with a vengeance. He has switched positions to oppose not only fast track but the North American Free Trade Agreement as well. Mp> That leaves Richard Burr, a five-term congressman from Winston-Salem with a solid conservative voting record, in a difficult position as Bowles' Republican opponent. He distanced himself from the White House by calling for the president to dismiss economic adviser Gregory Mankiw, whose report found merit in outsourcing American jobs. But Burr is not retreating from his record in support of Bush trade initiatives.
State Sen. Fred Smith, a rising new face in North Carolina Republican politics, told me the GOP will be saved here by conservative social values -- in particular, opposition to gay marriage. But many Republicans disagree as they ponder this question: Can a debate over homosexuals getting married in other states really trump China-bashing on jobs lost in North Carolina?
I fully expect the GOP to ride the "free trade" issue into the ground and take many losses for their only real constituents, the rich CEO's / Wall Street hustlers that pay the GOP's bills.
If the GOP thinks social issues will save them as they kick the door open wide for illegal aliens and export the last decent middle class jobs to Red China or India, here is a clue for the clueless.
The most important social issue for the great unwashed masses (middle class Americans for you "I got mine, everybody else can go to hell." Republicans) is, do I have a job that makes it possible for me to support myself and my family?
And...
Is there any hope of my kids having a better life than me by going to college or are they going to be door greeters at the Great Wall-Mart all of their lives?
Everything other social issue is secondary to these.
Get a clue GOP or lose power for the next 8 years or more.
First of all, Novak's political analysis has an average track record. He rarely leaves the Beltway and has no idea how the rest of the country works.
However, jobs losses in manufacturing in some states are a serious matter some Bush advisors ought to be fired for being so slow to recognize it. Furthermore, having someone from the administration repeat a false mantra that "outsourcing creates jobs" does not reflect the facts and the guy who just lost his mortgage is not gonna vote for you.
Then again, all of this is moot in NC.
With all due respect that is simply not true. The published unemployment numbers are a farce--they are whatever DOL says they are. The number comes from a survey with no statistical validity and is contradicted by tradational hard data such as help wanted adds; employment tax receipts (FICA; FUTA; WH receipts); Layoff numbers; as well as a substantial body of anecdotal information. Real unemployment is probably running as high as 11.8%, perhaps with some of the "real" unemployed in fact working in the cash construction economy.
Herbert Hoover and his administration spent all of 1931 and 1932 running on the proposition that employment was improving and the economy was on the threashold of significant improvement and Bush is headed for the same result.
Facts are economy is lousy and getting worse. Running administration talking heads around telling everyone who will listen that things are getting better is not doing any good--polls indicate clearly that the voters understand the economy is the only issue and unless the administration is prepared to address reality directly, Bush will lose. That simple.
No it is not. It is pretty strong. Growth is high, many sectors are as strong as they have ever been. Others are not. Times change, people need to change with the times. There are definite problems with outsourcing to other countries that need to be addressed. This is not happening because of anything Bush did. He may lose votes if he doesn't address that. Most people are doing well at this point. I know lots of people that were out of work in 2001-2003, but everyone is employed now. All indicators are positive. Jobs hopefully will improve. One thing is for certain; the economy is growing now, and has been for several quarters.
To put this another way, there is a large class of conservative-leaning voters who will accept a certain degree of social Talibanism (the Marriage Amendment, the War on Drugs, the FCC crackdown on radio speech, etc) if at the same time they could get smaller deficits and a strong economy. But now that the GOP has become the massive-government party and the we-don't-care-about-jobs party, why should the middle class support them?
Why didn't Burr embrace Mankiw's comments? They reflect Bush's views on free trade and outsourcing. The answer is that Burr knows which way the wind is blowing in NC and is trying to adapt as much as he can.
Even though you and I may disagree on many social issues, I think you are right about this.
When faced with the choice of say, an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage VS my job getting off shored to China or outsourced to India, along with an amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens that are driving down wages everyday, what do you think the average American worker is gonna vote for?
That seems to be the choice that Karl Rove, GW and the GOP are giving us this fall.
Well, I'm going to say that where there is trade imbalances, countries need to be mindful that we expect there to be fair trade. And I fully understand a competitive world is one that I think is positive, so long as the competition is fair.
And we'll talk about currency with the Chinese and with my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi. I will remind them that this nation has a strong dollar policy, and we expect the markets to reflect the true value of currency. That the way that currencies ought to be valued is based upon economic activity, fiscal policy, monetary policy of the respective governments, the potential for growth, the potential for long-term viability of the economies. That's how our respective currencies ought to be valued.
Yes, we'll bring that up. And I am -- my main focus here in America is there to be significant job creation. It looks like we're getting some positive results. Part of making sure that the job creation -- momentum of the job creation is viable is to make sure -- is to talk to our trading partners about fair trade. And there are some trade imbalances that I will be discussing.
We got some of greatest entrepreneurs in America. And, therefore, it seems like to make sense to me that we ought to be opening up markets for us to sell our goods. But the other thing I want you to understand is, we're going make sure it is fair. We want the playing field to be level, so we can compete in a fair way.
This is about more than times-a-changin'. A nation must produce things to be strong and secure. Look at our exports-- we resemble an agrarian society before the Industrial Revolution.
"If outsourcing would continue to the point of stripping the United States of its industrial base, and of the act of getting out its own technology, then it requires really careful thought of national policy and probably create incentives to prevent it from happening.... I don’t look at this from an economic point of view but the political and social points of view. The question really is whether America can remain a great power or a dominant power if it becomes a primarily service economy, and I doubt that. A country has to have an industrial base in order to play a significant role in the world. And I am concerned from that point of view." -- Henry Kissinger, July 16, 2003
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.