Category Archives: David Sirota
David Sirota is one of the few progressives that will go on Faux Noise and debate the rightwing nutjobs. This particular clip is interesting in that the wingnuts are blaming FDR for continuing the Depression because of the implementation of his programs that put America back to work.
From Sirota himself on this interview:
I appeared on Fox News to discuss the economic recovery package. As you’ll see, the anchor and the other guest assert that historians agree that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression – and they actually laugh at me when I say that’s a lie.
The wingnuts are losing it folks…they are pushing blatant lies as facts about a President that held office over 50 years ago.
The GOP, and by proxy, John McCain are pointing to the wealthiest county in all of the U.S. as a means to prove our economy is just fucking ducky and NAFTA works. David Sirota’s “Trade Report” for OurFuture.org has some simply friggin amazing stuff in it. From the linkage above:
The New York Times Magazine this week publishes an article by David Leonhardt attempting to explain Barack Obama’s fundamental economic ideology. To echo Philip Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous, “it’s a think-piece about a mid-level band struggling with their own limitations in the harsh face of stardom.” And, indeed, many of its passages should make Wall Streeters wet themselves. Within the first nine paragraphs, for instance, Leonhardt bills Citigroup Chairman Bob Rubin the “center,” despite his deregulatory and pro-NAFTA policies lying far outside the center of American public opinion. That said, the article provides some interesting insights into what Obama will – and will not – do as president.
Another gem, The Roanoke Times has an article up that explores how Obama is stumping in one of the worst hit cities with regard to NAFTA in VA, and how the Rethugs are taunting him to come talk about the horrors of NAFTA in, of all places, Fairfax County.
I lived in Fairfax county. It IS the top rated city for rich folks, believe me. With it’s close proximity to DC, just over the river, Fairfax residents, for the most part, LOVE the shit out of NAFTA. Rethug Tommy Davis is retiring but lobbed out this tidbit with regard to Fairfax county and NAFTA:
“What would be courageous is to come to Fairfax County, where you have 362 foreign-owned companies and tens of thousands of employees with foreign-owned firms … and take the same stand up here,” said Davis, who is retiring from Congress. (emphasis mine)
The operative word there is ‘foreign-owned’. Not American-owned..fucking foreign. Evidently that irony escapes the Republicans..as Sirota notes:
Besides the tone deafness of holding up foreign-owned firms as proof of a solid domestic economy, Davis forgot to mention that according to Forbes magazine, Fairfax County has long been the wealthiest county in the United States – a place where the median (the median!) household income is over $100,000 a year. The county is home to many of the millionaire corporate lobbyists that have been instrumental in the passage of rigged trade deals. Davis citing Fairfax County today as proof that trade policies are working for the vast majority of the country would be like FDR citing the Rockefeller family during the Great Depression as proof that the economy was working for most Americans.
Love it, especially the last line. 😉 The next part is sure to jack some jaws. Obama is ass-kissing some of the worst of the worst on Wall Street, namely the same captains of industry that oppose changing NAFTA one iota. From Sirota again:
As reported last week, Obama’s campaign is quietly courting the same CEOs that oppose trade policy reform. While there are certainly huge differences on trade between Obama and McCain’s stated positions, the two campaigns are both being advised by top executives from UBS, one of the largest investment banks in the world. Indeed, the McCain campaign continues to solicit advice from UBS vice-chairman Phil Gramm, while the Obama campaign has long been shaped by Gramm’s UBS boss, Robert Wolf. That kind of Wall Street influence will likely make a fair trade agenda much more difficult in 2009.
Make it difficult? Hell, it will make change impossible dude. The final subject tackled by Sirota in his piece is the much-hated (by me anyway) DLC and their bullshit express:
Ripping a page straight out of George W. Bush’s playbook, the Democratic Leadership Council this week attempted to justify its corporate sponsors’ trade agenda by writing a Wall Street Journal op-ed insisting that NAFTA-style trade deals fight Islamic terrorism. Yes – you read that right, and the DLC wasn’t joking. They really want America to believe that passing trade deals that are unpopular both here and abroad is the way to stop Al Qaeda.
In fact, the BBC’s landmark 2008 poll undercuts the DLC’s fact-free rhetoric with hard data. The survey of international opinion shows widespread unease with the United States’ trade and globalization policies – and that unease is particularly acute in the Middle East, where the DLC claims that NAFTA-style policies will stop terrorism.
As I have said before and I will scream it again…the DLC is not our friend. Never has been and never will be people. To say NAFTA will stop terrorism is fucking outrageous and yes, George Bush-league material. One only needs to look at the economy in Mexico to see that NAFTA hasn’t done squat for the common man and woman there. Oh, but the drug cartels are flourishing.
Interestingly enough, he also said Edwards would do ok..which second place in Iowa is a good showing for Edwards. Sirota calls both men “Economic Populists” and has stated for awhile that both of them would do better than 99% of the pundits were speculating.
The Path to a National Popular Vote
By David Sirota
Creators Syndicate, 12/28/07
Right now, many are frustrated about Iowa and New Hampshire voters having such oversized influence in America’s presidential elections. In a few months, as the general election campaign unfolds, we will be similarly frustrated about Ohio and Florida. Who arbitrarily gave this handful of states the disproportionate power to determine our national political path?
When it comes to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, the answer is the parties. They decide which states select nominees first. In the general election, the culprit is the Electoral College. Most states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. By no matter what margin presidential candidates win your state, they get all your state’s electoral votes. That means if you don’t live in a “battleground” like Florida or Ohio whose statewide vote is perpetually up for grabs, you are ignored.
The nominating system is easily modified. Parties can add early primary and caucus states if they choose. Changing the general election, on the other hand, looks much harder. The Electoral College and its negative consequences seem locked into the Constitution.
But the operative word is “seem.”
To read the full nationally syndicated newspaper column, go to: