Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)President Obama's Disingenuous Attack on Outsourcing [View all]
While we can all agree that Romney is a slimeball who shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the Oval Office, let's get real about where Obama himself really stands on the issue of American livelihoods moving overseas. (Caveat: Friedersdorf, while pointing out Obama's inconsistencies on the issue, himself seems to something of a globalization cheerleader -- and not one who can provide a convincing rationale to back up his support for it).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/president-obamas-disingenuous-attack-on-outsourcing/259851/
President Obama's Disingenuous Attack on Outsourcing
Jul 16 2012, 7:30 AM ET
by Conor Friedersdorf, Atlantic staff writer
...
He (Obama) started playing this game (criticizing his opponents' support for job offshoring) during the Democratic primary in 2007, insisting that if elected president he would renegotiate NAFTA. To no one's surprise, he wasn't in office a month before he reneged on that promise. He was pretending to be someone who believed the populist critique of free trade agreements, but like the academic and business elites with whom he staffs his administration, Obama buys into the conventional case for free trade and never wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. He still doesn't, no matter how many times he complains that "Romney's firms shipped jobs to Mexico." In the long run, capital and labor mobility either benefit us or make us no worse off, insofar as global competition cannot be escaped. I tire of Obama pretending his position is different, and feel especially sorry for the voters he's misleading.
snip
And who heads the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric. "Since Immelt took over GE in 2001, the company has lost 37,000 American jobs, and added 25,000 jobs overseas," Cole Stengler writes in a Huffington Post article titled "Obama Jobs Council Packed With Outsourcing Companies." I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Competition from foreign workers is going to disrupt labor markets for the foreseeable future; a company that foreswore outsourcing would be neither efficient nor viable in the long run. If Obama simply disagreed that would be one thing; instead Obama pretends to think Romney is malign for his indirect complicity in outsourcing years ago, even as he praises and elevates various business elites who are directly responsible for massive outsourcing right now.
snip
Look at what he does and ponder who he is. Were America divided into two economic tribes, the "American protectionists" and the "Acela corridor elites," Obama would belong to the latter. He surrounds himself with guys like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who recently said, "There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world. We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing." Obama's present strategy is so pernicious because he is misleading the tribe of "American protectionists" into thinking that he shares their populist attitudes. Nonsense. If reelected to another term, he's no more going to stop outsourcing or end offshore bank accounts (though some of Romney's seem shady) than he's going to renegotiate NAFTA. He's going to keep staffing his economic team with establishment elites from Wall Street and Ivy League universities. Any blue-collar populist who votes for Obama is going to be and feel betrayed. They're going to have less faith in politics. Told that a pol shares their perspective, only to find out that they were misled, some of them will wind up radicalized.
231 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Brilliant duck, even for you, Sid. I guess you can't defend Mr. Immelt. I wouldn't try, either. nt
Romulox
Jul 2012
#14
Why did this administration appoint Republicans to the President's cabinet? Are you saying
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#131
Letting Global Oil Cartels have more access to our resources is not 'outsourcing'?
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#229
And the question then becomes when will "enough be enough"? Short, sweet, and to the point.
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#46
So.. you're not against RW policy from 'dems', just offended that someone you consider RW
Edweird
Jul 2012
#34
FUDrs work thsi board HARD! Thx for your insght, I don't think I can believe them at all...
uponit7771
Jul 2012
#61
I am stating clearly (no need to imply) that I am against RW policy without regard to the source.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#64
Sometimes the truth is very painful and there are many here that are very disappointed
Bandit
Jul 2012
#3
This sounds FUDr-ish, at the least assume Obama is a dictator and congress is something he can
uponit7771
Jul 2012
#4
Well, I don't have any way to refute this. Is it ok to cast aspersions against the OP, instead?
Romulox
Jul 2012
#8
Surely people are not gullible enough to fall for this obvious a ruse?
Egalitarian Thug
Jul 2012
#101
Absolutely not. Election year is the MOST important time to speak up.
woo me with science
Jul 2012
#16
You are full of shit if you think it is "OK" to cozy up to a right wing shill
emulatorloo
Jul 2012
#142
You asked, "Do you want repug Romney appointing their replacements with more right wingers like
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#86
"I'ld rather that Obama would do that." Which is bullshit speculation that
emulatorloo
Jul 2012
#176
No matter how many times you use the word "bullshit," Kagan's positions on criminal cases is coming
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#188
Kagan was your attempt to change the subject from me calling you on your speculative bullshit.
emulatorloo
Jul 2012
#192
But for how much longer? This is against Skinner's own mission statement. How much longer?
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#49
But with or without the use of rightwing sources, Skinner has to have recognized the pattern.
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#77
"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part..."
Romulox
Jul 2012
#82
I don't think it's disingenuous if he's trying to do something about the problem.
RedStateLiberal
Jul 2012
#22
Then going back to your origional statement in which you said that you don't think it's disingenuous
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#98
3rd way/new 'dem' garbage is about RW policy. This and the individual mandate are prime examples.
Edweird
Jul 2012
#32
Post right wing sources to attack President Obama and this is what I see/hear
stevenleser
Jul 2012
#38
Unless Kucinich or Nader is running... am I to assume the purists are voting for Romney???
progressivebydesign
Jul 2012
#58
Why are you attacking THE Democratic candidate during a presidential campaign??
kestrel91316
Jul 2012
#63
K n R. Apparently our side is as susceptible to candidates' pandering as theirs.
Lionessa
Jul 2012
#76
For some, as you can readily see, speaking the truth is overrated. But I thank you.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#94
If there is to be a choice between the truth and disingenuous ad hominem attacks on truth tellers,
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#99
Um, no. I like the 'blue links'. So I'll ask again, why did this administration appoint Republicans
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#134
Yes, facts do come in handy especially when there are those who try to deflect from
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#136
My question was 'why did this administration appoint Republicans to his cabinet'
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#138
True, but I am astounded by what has been revealed in this thread. From the same people
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#228
Wow, that's a remarkably unwarranted celebration you are having there with your friends.
woo me with science
Jul 2012
#133
Prosense, didn't you know that squatting in parks and disavowing politics is the wave of the future?
dionysus
Jul 2012
#144
You said that, not I. I am a Democrat because I despise Republicans and do not want them in
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#199
I, as a Democrat, more than 'tend to leave Republicans out and to exclude them as they do to us'.
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#202
So you too agree with Dems appointing Republicans to positions of power after we throw them out?
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#162
Sabrina - lets have a nice discussion without "litmus tests" as to who is a "better" Democrat.
emulatorloo
Jul 2012
#166
We disagree. Gates is a war monger and a liar. No Democrat should appoint someone
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#179
It is ok to disagree. As to your original question, long tradition of appointees from another party
emulatorloo
Jul 2012
#189
Yes, I am aware, and even support, cooperation between the two parties. But we are talking about
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#204
what's "desperate" is, the "dems" who are so upset that obama's going to have another 4 years, they
dionysus
Jul 2012
#148
he does have a point. Democrats have supported outsourcing and predatory capitalism. However, if I
Douglas Carpenter
Jul 2012
#161
It's outright attempts at suppression, and against the TOS. I don't get it.
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#177
You were doing okay up to your last paragraph, which is something you apparently made up
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#225
So again, you have not explained this. Why do you support putting Republicans in
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#207
Hey Sid, why won't answer the question? Do you support Republicans being given
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#212
"Or are you disputing the fact that Immelt was appointed to this president's cabinet? "..
SidDithers
Jul 2012
#213