tdbach:

Point taken.  And excellent points made.

Peace.

Maani, I’ve been pushed into the Hillary camp by the brutal treatment given to her by the MSM and the liberal blogosphere, but I have to take issue with you. There’s nothing dumb about Obama, and by extension dumb about being his supporter.

On the other hand, I think Louise is wrong to worry that Clinton is reaching out for voters from the same dumb pool as Bush. To me, it’s the press who is hoping to dumb-down the story line to cast her in the least favorable light, one that fits nicely with their win-at-all-cost meme for her (and Bill).

So when Bill compares Obama’s win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s, they cry, “They’re playing the race card! They’re saying he can’t win but in a black-majority state! Those crass Clintons!!” Excuse me, but this is a campaign. It’s the JOB of leaders of that campaign to cast results in a way that encourages their troops, not to scurry off with their tails between their legs. Jackson DID win in that state without going on to win the nomination. It’s a fair comparison, because the larger African-American voter pool DOES favor an African-American candidate. Why not play that up so that campaign workers in other states don’t get discouraged?

And when Clinton warns that people bought the Bush persona, with little regard for his lighter-than-air political background, and ended up with a disaster,  the press and Obama supporters cry foul, saying that she’s comparing Obama to Bush - an absolute no-no and yet another example of her slash-and-burn politics. But she isn’t comparing the two, except as untested, appealing (to some, God help them, in the case of Bush) men. And it’s a fair - and actually quite important - point. If Obama can stand up to scrutiny (scrutiny that Bush never really had to face), great. But let there be scrutiny.

By the way, isn’t Obama implicitly comparing Clinton to Bush when he says that a vote for Clinton is a vote for “politics as usual” and “more of the same”? Just asking…

Has Obama ever compared Hillary to George Bush? Obama is a good Democrat who has run the cleanest, most elevated campaign in American history, as far as I know. Hillary is a politician who will say and do anything, including hurt the party and the country, in order to win. We the people are not as dumb as you think we are. We can tell the difference.

Louise,

You bring up such good points here. They also serve as ‘prompts’ for my continuing education.

Like this for instance:

•  He cant focus because he never knows what will greet him when he goes home. The attack ... screaming, condemning, finding fault ... or the, Hi Sweetheart, how was your day? A form of shell-shock. Never knowing when the bomb will go off.

I’d say yes, it’s a form of shell-shock, and it’s also a form of TERROR. The confusion of the unpredictability, combined with total irrationality….(nothing makes sense) is a form of terror. And, Americans in general, have been terrorized for over 7 years now.

Nobody knows what to expect from anything. What used to make sense, or what used to be ‘routine’, is gone. It has simply vanished. It could be one thing, like what greets the child returning from school, or it could be something else. And, one never knows which it will be.

As a collective society, we have an idea of the basic laws of the land, and the normative sort of routine. Then all of a sudden, (or not really, but so it seems) that’s all snatched out from under us. Torture used to be prohibited, and we could count on that. Now..it’s all whatever Dick Bush says it is. Just get somebody to write it up, and in the process, ‘up’ will now mean ‘down’, except for when it means ‘up’.

And yes, it HAS created all of the craziness. I’ve noticed it in the rise of the irrationality of religion. Despite my “Culturally Catholic” upbringing, I’ve never considered myself particularly ‘religious’. Yet, in the old Century, religion was just sort of always around, just like any other ‘parts’ of the average person’s life. I lived in a multi-cultural neighborhood, so the ‘acknowledgment’ of multiple religious persuasions was a natural for me. And, even though I wasn’t particularly ‘religious’ myself, in the conventional sense, I would NEVER have thought of myself as an ‘atheist’ since I always believed in some sort of ‘higher power’ even if I didn’t think it was a guy with a beard in the sky. Surely, it never prevented me from indulging/respecting my grandma, or any other relatives/neighbors/etc, in their more serious consideration of the Deity.

Well! Along came GWB and his Evangelical crew, and they’ve just become crazier and crazier! They’ve spread this crazy shit like the worst kind of a plague, and damn if I haven’t become a ranting atheist, who would as soon chop off their heads as look at ‘em!

Needless to say, this is a purely emotional REACTION, (and an extreme one) and on an intellectual level, I KNOW THAT! Doesn’t matter. If a witness for Jehovah had come to my door on a Saturday morning 8 or so years ago, I would have at least answered the door, and chatted politely, if only briefly. NOW…depending on the timing and circumstances, I’m likely to chase them down the walk with a skillet or whatever else might be handy.

This is not a good thing, and I blame the criminals that are still at large, particularly in the White House. (though like all other rats, they’ve multiplied and spread out).

So, yeah…everybody has PTSD, of some version of it, including Hillary. She EXPECTED to be the POTUS come 2009. For her, it was a given. It was PREDICTABLE. Now that it is no longer a given, she’s desperate, and so she’s doing desperate things. And the more desperate she becomes, (the campaign is downright nasty and mean – I agree) the more she sinks. It’s like trying to get a stuck car out of a ditch. If you panic, and do the wrong thing, the car just sinks deeper into the ditch, tires spinning, but without any traction.

And now we’ve got Nader gearing up time, money, and energy for a 3rd failure.  Let’s just keep everything as confusing and unpredictable as possible, to keep the terror going, eh? I mean, that’s what it would seem like he must be thinking, or not (thinking).

Maani, dear Maani ...

I respect your loyalty to Hillary, I really do.

But like it or not she is the one drawing the parallel to Bush, not just with her words but with her delivery of those words. In other words [lots’a words] she forces the picture of Bush into the mind. A mistake, because as everyone can well remember his was the negative campaign. As are ALL republican campaigns.

I’m not alone in my reaction. Experts, voters and dim-bulbs all across the political spectrum see her current tack as ... well, tacky.

Seems to me the truly loyal Hillary supporter would try and reach out to her and let her know she’s working against her own best interests. Like spittin’ in the wind. It’s not hittin’ Obama, it’s coming back in her own face.

Peace? Maybe if we elect a president who actually understands the meaning of the word.

Louise:

“Back when [Bush]...was running for president…I use to listen to his campaign rhetoric and marvel…And the press and pundits listened…I really believed nobody that voted was that dumb. While I’m not the smartest in the world, I was certain there were a lot of people out there who were at least as smart as me.  Unquestionably smarter than Bush.  It appeared I was wrong…So people came to depend on sound-bites and press coverage. The press was very good to Bush…[And] all the same, people cheered. People stood in line to see him.  People actually VOTED for him. Eventually I developed a theory. If someone could listen to the man long enough to develop a fondness for his message, then that someone simply had to be really dumb!”

The above is a redacted version of your post.  In my opinion, you could replace “Bush” with “Obama” and nothing would be different.

Peace.

cyrena:

“It’s the accident in slow motion nightmare; over and over again.”

“Listening/hearing creates episodes of PTSD for me.”

***

The accident in slow motion, followed by the PTSD episode. What a great analogy! Maybe that explains a lot of craziness. Maybe we are all trapped in some form of PTSD.

Like the kid who wants to do good in school, wants to be an achiever, but he cant focus. He cant focus because he never knows what will greet him when he goes home. The attack ... screaming, condemning, finding fault ... or the, Hi Sweetheart, how was your day? A form of shell-shock. Never knowing when the bomb will go off.

Maybe it is too late for Hillary. Strangely, it’s almost like she wants to self-destruct! It was clear on last nights news, mainstreammedia is labeling her campaigning as “nasty” and “mean,” at least the news I watched. Hardly the persona one would expect from the woman for change. Oh that may have come out wrong. Makes it sound like nasty and mean are characteristically womanly. Oh well, you know what I mean. Maybe we’re seeing desperation on the cusp of madness.

Anyway, thanks for your response. And good to know you never rubbed up against the “upper crust.”

Louise,

I love your essay! I can just so very much relate, and it even gives me a chill to call these times to mind, since I admit that for me at least, this lead-up to the installation of George W. Bush was a very long nightmare. Not exactly like watching a mother in labor, and wanting to help her push it out, but that’s close enough.

For me, it was more like watching a horrible traffic accident in very slow motion. You see it coming, but you’re momentarily frozen, and any action comes too late, or is too little.

I actually DID try to inform a few, back at the time, because I did live there then. (North Central Texas). But, of course it was never ‘home’ for me. I was an ‘outsider’ there, and it was actually OK with me. To be otherwise, would have meant subscribing to the same mentality. I needn’t say more, other than to say that it would have been far worse than having one’s toes curled into one’s feet.

I can’t really even attest to the way the upper crust looked, acted, or any of that, because while I know exactly what you mean about the big blonde hair, and the really bad hats, and the dripping diamonds on the fur, (fur coats that stayed in cold storage 11 months out of the year) I just can’t bring myself to call them ‘upper crust’. If they were an upper crust, it can only be considered in terms of the crusty scab of a REALLY BAD wound. Like a brain surgery wound left open to heal on its own. So, that’s the ‘upper crust’. I was just the average corporate plantation worker, who tried to just keep out of their way, and ‘serve the regular folks.” That generally allowed me to avoid the ‘upper crust’ like the plague that I saw them to be. My avoidance tactics were often comical.

That said, I accepted the reality of the nightmare, once the installation occurred. I KNEW what was gonna happen. I KNEW it was going to be the beginning of hell. Nobody believed me then, and there’s been little point in adopting an ‘I told you so’ attitude. People have to figure things out for themselves. Sometimes they do, and sometimes, they don’t. I just wish that it didn’t have to be so god damned PAINFUL for them. That’s the part that’s like watching a mother in labor.

Even with that though, I had NO idea that they would become THIS dangerous. I swear I didn’t. I knew that Bush was incredibly stupid. I knew that Cheney was incredibly diabolical, but NOT stupid. I tried to get that across. It wasn’t enough.

I remember making a quick trip home, (Calif) right after that horror of Dec, 2000…the SC appointment that started it all. We were just having the standard family dinner talk, and obviously feeling gloomy. My sister said something to the effect of ‘Well, hopefully he’ll at least surround himself with good advisors”. I wanted to wish the same, but I already knew what the deal was as far as ‘advisors’ went. That would be Cheney and his secret staff.

Still, even I could never have imagined they would pull the 9/11 horror, or even the attack and occupation of Iraq. I guess we figured it out soon enough though. But, that’s been the most painful part. Watching my friends loose their loved ones, and not really being able to find any way to console them. How do you tell someone that their child/parent/spouse/sibling, died because of the greed of these evil perpetrators, especially when they are the SAME people you so frantically tried to warn before? It’s the accident in slow motion nightmare; over and over again.

Anyway, I admire that you’ve exercised the will to actually make yourself sit through that rhetoric. After that fateful day in December 2000, I just couldn’t do it anymore. I force myself to read the shit, but that’s the best I can do. Listening/hearing creates episodes of PTSD for me.

ONE good thing happened then. I escaped Texas, and made my way back home. There’s no way I would have survived, had I stayed there. So, a backward blessing.

I think it’s too late for Hillary.

Back when Bushes favored son was running for president the first time, I use to listen to his campaign rhetoric and marvel. Not that anything he said was brilliant. In fact it took a huge force of will to listen to him. I marveled that what he said was so obviously off the mark. Against the best interests of the nation. Or blatant lies. And the press and pundits listened ... as though it had value.

I really believed nobody that voted was that dumb. While I’m not the smartest in the world, I was certain there were a lot of people out there who were at least as smart as me. Unquestionably smarter than Bush.

It appeared I was wrong.

Down the road I’ve learned a couple of things that restored my faith in my fellow citizens to a degree. For one thing, I found out it bothered everybody else to watch/listen to him as much as it bothered me.

“It’s like your hanging on a cliff ... waiting for the sentence to end ... hoping you don’t fall off before it does.”
“You find yourself clinging to the edge of your chair, white-knuckled ... pushing ... like watching a mother in labor and wishing she’d just push it out. And being helpless to help her push.”

“You get the feeling like he’s really trying to say something important, but by the time he winds around and actually shuts his mouth your not sure what it was ... or even where it began.”

“But my favorite was, “I cant watch that man, it makes my toenails curl into my feet!”

Yeh, that would be painful. And watching and listening to Bush was painful. So people came to depend on sound-bites and press coverage. The press was very good to Bush. They actually plowed through the babble and reported it as some sort of intelligent, if not presumptuous postulation. But all the same, people cheered. People stood in line to see him. People actually VOTED for him.

Eventually I developed a theory. If someone could listen to the man long enough to develop a fondness for his message, then that someone simply had to be really dumb!

Later when I watched the inaugural parade I saw something I had never seen before. People with protest signs. People egging the presidential Limo!

Never in my life have I seen so many big blonde heads, under so many really bad big hats, perched on diamond and gold and fur dripping bodies. Never so many as there were among the honored guests at the inaugural ceremony! [cyrena, is that how the upper crust always looks in Texas?] It was positively comical.

I watched a dry-eyed Bush take the oath of office. Later I watched a re-broadcast of that moment on FOX and marveled that tears were streaming down his face. [How did FOX do that anyway?] And that’s when I finally, fully comprehended we were in for a very long trip through Hell.

I was right ... it has been ... it needs to end.

Now, thanks to Tony Wicher’s link I read:

“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” she [Clinton] continued.”

[Clintons use of that once popular quote made famous by Bush butchery brought so much unpleasantness to mind.]

“The Obama campaign responded by sending along a quote from Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson: “If you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it’s about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George Bush. That’s the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering.”

[That’s right]

What has happened to Hillary?

Is she reaching out for the dumb vote?

Does she think we are dumb?

When did the worst become the best?

Hillary dump your writers and your advisers and just be yourself ... before it’s too late!

[If it isn’t already]

Curious why you call it ‘slander’ Gomerspile.

Why can’t the truth just be the truth, especially when it’s documented?

No doubt that’s the issue with so many things these days. Why not just call it what it is, and let it just be that? Doesn’t have to be slander, and it doesn’t have to be praise. It is what it is. (the truth that is).

Bravo Jackpine.

Maani, any questions here? This seems to pretty well cover it.

So, I guess if she was really dead set against it…‘in private’ and worked really hard -in private- to keep NAFTA off the table, it must not have been a very successful effort. (even the alleged sabotage didn’t work)

Do ya think she’ll be any more successful this time around?

I dunno Maani. She’s lost the last 10 states. IN A ROW. That’s not a good sign. Well, at least not for Hillary.

I’m OK with it though.

[The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.”

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton “touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.”

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that “the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”]

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-02-15-1 0-56-06-news.php

Now, Sen Clinton may have argued against NAFTA in private, but how do any of us know that except to trust it to be the case?  And she has publicly praised it, so we should trust her that she was lying when she publicly praised it?

She may also have changed her mind about it, and that is acceptable…except the damage is already done.  And if she believes differently now she should explain her change of heart.

Of course in an interview with Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,158464 9,00.html) she basically blames the Bush administration for everything that’s wrong with NAFTA while maintaining that the idea itself is good.  She, of course, simply breezes over the reporter pointing out that the Clinton administration signed it.  Its not a Clinton’s fault because they “inherited it”. (so much for cleaning up after a Bush, eh?)

I am so sick of everything being someone else’s fault with the Clintons.  They’re always being misled or they’re the targets of conspiracies or people aren’t being fair enough to them.

From NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli, NBC’s Ron Allen and Christina Jamison

CINCINNATI—Making an implicit comparison between President Bush and Obama, Hillary Clinton warned an audience this morning that change for changes sake is not necessarily a good thing.
“He promised change as a compassionate conservative,” she said referring to Bush, “and the American people got shafted.”
The line, deliver with a passion not always seen from the New York senator, brought the hundreds at Cincinnati State College to their feet.
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” she continued.

The Obama campaign responded by sending along a quote from Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson: “If you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it’s about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George Bush. That’s the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering.”

After the talk, she continued to take the fight to Obama while talking to reporters, displaying two of Obama direct mail attack pieces, which she called “blatantly false” and claimed that his rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

“Let’s have a real campaign,” she said, her anger palpable. “Enough with the speeches and the big rallies… Shame on you Barack Obama… Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

A supporter had showed Clinton the mailers in the rope line earlier at the event. One mailer is about NAFTA, and uses a Newsday quote saying Clinton says it was a “boon” to our economy. She claims never to have said that and that Newsday printed a correction. The second mailer is about health care and says her plan would force people to buy policies they cannot afford. It is the one that resembles the Republican Harry and Louise ad.

Read the rest of this article at:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/23/6 93956.aspx

Steve:

“It has been well-established that Hillary Clinton opposed NAFTA when her husband was deciding whether or not to push it.  This has been revealed by numerous sources, many of which are books that have been written over the years. I was just reading one last night. Nigel Hamilton’s “Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency” notes about the internal debate on NAFTA: “Hillary had done her best to dash the hopes of the NAFTA brigade on the President’s staff—indeed she even managed to get Mickey Kantor, the new U.S. Trade Representative, to offer to sabotage the bill in Congress.” This is but one example. You know full well of the others, I’m sure.”

Thank you for this.  Yes, there are numerous sources that support this, including Carl Bernstein’s new book, “A Woman in Charge.”  And Bernstein had perhaps the greatest access to Bill, Hillary and members of their administration of any writer thus far, and heard this (i.e., that Hillary was dead-set against NAFTA) independently from numerous sources.

And it is also true (as you note) that no one here has been able to provide a single, solitary direct public quote from Hillary in which she supports it.

Peace.

Peace.

There was talk of Clinton being involved in the whole right wing sweep around Congress of the Iran-Contra affair. How? By allowing his State to be used as a launching and staging point. For this, vast sums of money poured through and “allowed” the “Arkansas Miracle” to occur in the midst of a depression. The “Miracle” allowed him to go on and win a nomination. It was said that the head of the CIA during that time made the deal, and the second part of the deal was the making him President. Unfortunately, he died of brain cancer(?) before being made to answer any questions regarding this matter, and Bush Jr. made sure to seal all records regarding his daddy, which covers this time. Could that be the source of hatred for many right wingers that Clinton came to power on their coat tails as the golden haired boy profiting off their illegal hard earned wars? If that was the case, one would expect him to promote whatever would float his boat further at the expense of everyone else. Of course, everything could be cloaked under the veil of “National Security”, records sealed and so forth. Enough books were written about this back door, shadow way of doing business and yet, nothing happened. The information was there but the mainstream media, if they mentioned it, let sleeping dogs lie.
You are right about NAFTA creating hardship in Mexico and sending illegal workers over the border. There are precedents for this policy such as during WWII. Soon as the need evaporated(war over), it was don’t let the door hit you on your bum on your way back. Did some stay? What would one think? Were some offered on the sly their jobs, wink, wink, if they just happened to show back up?
What jobs would have existed back in their countries, and at what wages if they had been working in a foreign country? Arriving back in their home country would have created a glut of workers, and no newer opportunties. The stage was set for illegal immigration based upon official government policies created under the “cloud of war”. Racism dictated then the “Guest Worker Status”. We didn’t import labor, we just borrowed some poor people from Mexico to be returned when we were through with them. Similar to slavery in the South, without the chains;just no papers if they chose to run and we now use ICE as the runaway slave bounty hunters or Union busters if they want to organize.
Policy such as this would continue under a Clinton, or both of them, as they never confronted it before nor attacked it. It is more of the wink, wink variety but real people, all of us, suffer for it. I include our fellow humans with the yoke of “Illegal Immigrant” branded upon them.

Much like Jimmy and Tammy Bakker the Clinton’s will say, do or manipulate anything that gets in their way. Must be a Southern thing. I have only heard one nominee use the correct wordage, ” Fair Trade”, and that is Barack Obama.. The over-used rhetoric of ” Free Trade” is an oxymoron and deceit. Being lap-dogs for corporate has been baggage of Clinton’s since their occupation of the White House.
It seems to me we have one democrat running against two repugs…anyone remember the word Dixiecrat?
Once more David Sirota gives us the truth on Hillary. like it or not.

pbr90…

Did you really say this? Who KNEW? Were you even a tad bit conscious when half the world rallied against this, as well as the world bank, and the IMF?

If Slick Willy Clinton was the brillantine that we know him to be, he damn sure SHOULD have known that this was the eventual outcome of his FREE trade, as opposed to FAIR trade policies.

The American public may still be in the dark, and that would include anybody who doesn’t understand that illegal immigration and the loss of jobs for Americans is just another component of NAFTA policies. People continue to blame immigrants for ‘taking American jobs’ without accepting the fact that all of this immigration is economically based. NAFTA policies have run these people off of their farms, and out of their own economies, forcing them to come here for survival.

Chances ARE however, that even with that, far fewer of them would still be coming here, IF corporate lords weren’t HIRING them…HERE! And, these factory slum lords PREFER to hire an illegal immigrant, any day of the week. Thanks to NAFTA. What they don’t outsource, (that ends up being produced by sweat shop or similar type slave labor in places like China or the Philippines) is done HERE by the same sweat shop type labor, performed by economically desperate immigrants who have been run out of their own countries by these same corporations.

Now if you’re suggesting that the Clinton’s didn’t know this was an inherent outcome, even though this ‘outsourcing’ had already begun to take American jobs even BEFORE Clinton passed the legislation, they’ve had 15 or so years to flippin’ figure it out!!! (this stuff actually began in the Bush I Era, and Clinton just finished the details of the deal).

Who KNEW? How about every single solitary corporation that has made billions off of these free trade practices?

And Hillary has only JUST decided that there might be a problem in Houston? Oh please.

If Clinton’s were aware of the elite corporate imperialism, they might be blamed for the abuse of NAFTA; chances are when it was passed, they weren’t.

It’s not the Clinton’s fault that American multinationals decides to play it for what it was worth, shipping millions of jobs offshore for low wages, and allowing illegal immigrants to slip into the U.S. to displace the American workforce.

NAFTA and CAFTA should have come with quotas so that a gradual shifting of jobs could occur without the harms that those programs caused because of corporate embrace of the loopholes. It wasn’t the programs that were bad, it was the implementation that was lousy. Who knew? No one could have predicted the impact upon the American workforce; at least, if so, they failed to mention that problem.

America was sold out but there is no guarantee it was Clinton who did it.

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband’s “successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”

Sen Clinton is lucky that she’s not running against me, because i’d be beating her over the head with NAFTA on a daily basis.

Trading freely is not a bad idea, it is a wonderful idea.  But calling NAFTA (and the like) “free trade” is like calling the Pentagon the Department of Defense.  NAFTA was not designed to promote trade, it was designed to make American corporations a bundle of short-term money…damn the consequences.

Every time an immigration question came up during a debate, i’d make sure to point out that illegal immigration has mushroomed since NAFTA.

I would point out that prominent members of the Democratic Party questioned it at the time.  I would point out that every one of Ross Perot’s predictions about it came terribly true.

And i would certainly explain that “trade” has equaled two things.  One, it would be better to call it labor arbitration: why pay an American a living wage when you can pay a Mexican next to nothing?  Two, i would point out the agricultural significance: that we’ve used Mexico as a dumping ground for our subsidized agro-products…putting farmers out of work so that they must work in plants for American companies or cross the border.

The latter would be my favorite, because then i could remind people that Sen Clinton has called Monsanto a “Democratic company”...

NAFTA has made a lot of money for CEO’s and Wall Street investors…by taking it out of the pockets of regular Americans and Mexicans. (its also made it impossible for my state to stop Ontario from shipping all its solid waste across the border)

The trade issue seemed to work for Obama in Wisconsin.  Politically, the chickens seem to be coming home to roost on NAFTA.