via contact.ipr@gmail.com
WASHINGTON, DC — Green Party leaders called on President-elect Barack Obama to appoint a Cabinet that will pursue real reform, in accord with Mr. Obama’s promise of change in the new administration.
“Democratic and Republican presidents alike have a record of naming industry chiefs, corporate board members and lawyers, and others loyal to wealthy, elite interests,” said Holly Hart, secretary of the Green Party of the United States. “If President Obama truly believes in ‘change we can believe in,’ he’ll appoint a Cabinet that looks like America — not just in ethnic and gender diversity, but in its
dedication to the needs of working Americans and the goal of international peace and justice.”Greens called Mr. Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel for White House Chief of Staff especially unfortunate, citing Mr. Emanuel’s position as managing director of investment banks Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, earning him $18 million between 1999 and 2002 and his track record in
Congress since 2003.The appointment of Mr. Emanuel confirms Mr. Obama’s pledge to AIPAC that he will maintain the same uncritical support for Israel as the Clinton and Bush administrations, whose policies resulted in
increasing human rights violations against Palestinians and greater instability in the region. Mr. Emanuel was also one of the original drafters of NAFTA and now favors similar antidemocratic ‘free trade’ pacts with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, which would cost more US jobs and suppress environmental and labor protections.Green Party leaders said that Rahm Emanuel’s appointment was consistent with Mr. Obama’s choice of Sen. Joe Biden as his Vice President. Despite his reputation in the media as a defender of working people, Mr. Biden helped draft a law signed by President Bush that relaxed regulations on financial institutions, giving them more power over Americans facing financial problems and transferring risk
from predatory lenders to borrowers. As an architect of mandatory minimum drug laws (including the RAVE Act), Sen. Biden helped put the children of working families behind bars.Among the corporate-connected names on the list for the Obama Cabinet are Eric Holder, Jr. for Attorney General and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Holder is a partner at Covington & Burling, which represents the National Football League, Chiquita, and Merck, and Gov. Vilsack is an enthusiastic advocate of genetically engineered crops and corn- and soy-based biofuels, with ties to Monsanto, whose products and policies have destroyed independent and family farms around the world.
“Barack Obama’s mantra of ‘change’ is already a lie. With Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, and with Hillary Clinton rumored to be Secretary of State, the Obama White House is ready to pursue much of
the same agenda as previous administrations,” said Cliff Thornton, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. “It’s a twisted irony that some tried to tag Obama as a socialist, a perception that
will make it that much easier for his administration to continue the practice of redistributing wealth from middle- and low-income Americans to America’s wealthiest. Bill Clinton was denounced as a
liberal by the same right-wing pundits whose corporate buddies he was handing America over to. The same sell-out is going to happen all over again.”“Voters who elected Barack Obama because of his promise of change and the hope of a progressive administration need to wake up and realize they’re in for yet another fight. Only if the voters hold Obama to his promises can we avoid the same pro-corporate and warhawk policies that came out of the disastrous Clinton and Bush White Houses,” added Mr. Thornton.
19 responses so far ↓
1 Robert Milnes // Nov 20, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I told you so. Progressives & Greens should have supported the Progressive Libertarian Alliance strategy.
2 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 20, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I know this is going to get me flayed alive, but free trade agreements are better than the only viable alternative, which is protectionism.
I favor unfettered free trade, but the next best thing is fettered free trade.
3 G.E. // Nov 20, 2008 at 7:14 pm
FETTERED FREE TRADE!!!
Ignorance is Strength!
4 Trent Hill // Nov 20, 2008 at 7:25 pm
GE,
How on earth do you disagree? He says unfettered free trade is better, a statement you obviously agree with. And that fettered free trade is better than protectionism, a statement that makes sense for any libertarian, since fettered free trade is really just a lesser form of protectionism.
5 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 20, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I actually agree with the pig greens on this one, but it’s there own fault for not joining the Democratic Party. and Robert, how would a libertarian government be better for the peace-loving socialist workers of America?
Stop Hillary Clinton, stop Eric Holder, Please O God bring Obama back unto your will, amen.
6 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 20, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Mr. Hill - he was right in a certain sense, in that any form of shackle or “fetter” would make the trade not entirely free.
I should have said that I favor freer trade over protectionism, which, to me, seems to be a weakness of the anti-NAFTA crowd.
7 paulie cannoli // Nov 20, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I guess that depends on whether you think empowering international bureaucracies makes trade on balance more free.
8 Trent Hill // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:00 am
“he was right in a certain sense, in that any form of shackle or “fetter†would make the trade not entirely free.”
Yea, he was going for a play on words—not criticizing your ideas. I somehow missed that…geeze.
9 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:06 am
I guess that depends on whether you think empowering international bureaucracies makes trade on balance more free.
This sounds like one of those backhanded disagreements I hear so much about.
What international bureaucracies, specifically, are directly empowered by NAFTA?
10 Trent Hill // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:27 am
To be clear, I absolutely oppose NAFTA. It isnt a step in the right direction.
11 G.E. // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:31 am
Trent - Do you know what “fettered” means? You can’t have “fettered” free trade.
12 G.E. // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:33 am
Steve - NAFTA and WTO are protectionist organizations. There’s no guarantee, nor any reasonable reason to believe, that what might replace them would be more protectionist. Regardless, they’re entirely unconstitutional and literally forbid free trade. The WTO is a UN World Government organization.
13 Trent Hill // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:38 am
GE,
I said a few comments back “Yea, he was going for a play on words—not criticizing your ideas. I somehow missed that…geeze.”
So in answer to “Trent - Do you know what “fettered†means? You can’t have “fettered†free trade.”
I’ll just point up 3 comments.
14 Trent Hill // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:40 am
And of course I know what fettered means, dont insult me.
And yea, Fettered free trade certainly could exist. It’s called Protectionism. I assume fettered free trade would look more like a free trade agreement than outright protectionism.
15 G.E. // Nov 21, 2008 at 12:40 am
So you’re criticizing me for posting a reply before reading all the replies, when you posted a reply without first stopping to think?
16 Trent Hill // Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 am
Im not criticizing! Man you are defensive,lol.
No, I was just saying that I did already notice that I made a mistake. The fault is clearly mine.
17 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 21, 2008 at 1:09 am
There’s no guarantee, nor any reasonable reason to believe, that what might replace them would be more protectionist.
I’m asking you to think about what came before the agreements.
Seriously, what did the state of trade look like among North American nations prior to the agreement?
The WTO is a UN World Government organization.
The UN is a toothless joke. Nations only follow the UN voluntarily.
18 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The problem with “fettered free trade” is that it is a kinder, gentler protectionism disguised as free trade … which means that all of its down sides will get blamed on free trade, causing sentiment to move in a more, not less, protectionist direction.
19 Steven Druckenmiller // Nov 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I just do not find that verifiable, Mr. Knapp. If anything, once you get a “foot in the door”, it is easier, not harder, to expand the types of trade that fall under free trade agreements.
I’ll readily grant that there are problems with partial free-trade, but once you get an agreement, the “genie is out of the bottle”.
Leave a Comment