Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Virtual townhall: McCain, Obama interview in Fortune

posted at 11:47 am on June 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

Fortune Magazine got an opportunity to pit the two presidential candidates against each other in a debate over economics, which it will publish in the July 7th edition.   Fortune will even publish that edition with two different covers, one featuring John McCain and the other Barack Obama — which might provide some data for a crude straw poll based on which cover sells best.   While both candidates come off well, McCain very obviously comes across as the aggressor in the excerpts released today:

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

Obama: If we don’t get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we’ve seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that’s required to find alternative fuels. I think it’s very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

Mccain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we’re in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences. You’ve been a supporter of climate-change legislation that would essentially impose a penalty on the use of fossil fuel.

Should consumers and businesses be prepared to pay higher prices for gasoline and electricity?

Mccain: The difference I have with the opponents of cap-and-trade is that they believe it will require greater sacrifice on the part of Americans. I think innovation and advanced technology are beneficial to the lives of American citizens and our economy. Long term, I do not believe we will see the price of a barrel of oil come down permanently or dramatically. I just happen to believe that even though this very high price—and it may go higher—has some artificiality associated with it, the fact is that there is a greater and greater demand for what is fundamentally a finite resource. So that then argues for nuclear power, for wind, tide, solar, and innovative technologies such as batteries that will take a car 100 miles before we have to plug it in.

Obama: There is no doubt that in the short term, adapting to this new energy economy is going to carry some costs. [But] I would never underestimate the power of American innovation. So my instinct is that there are going to be technological breakthrough that [lead to] declining energy prices over the long term. I think that the key is to make sure that if there are any short-term spikes in energy that we protect those who can least afford it. I think it’s a mistake to do it artificially—for example, by suspending the gas tax. I think that is a gimmick that will end up actually increasing our consumption of oil.

Obama makes the same mistake that the Democrats have made all throughout this debate — claiming that producing more oil won’t help a supply shortage.  Of course it helps to produce more supply, and the argument that it doesn’t makes the purveyor sound like an idiot.  The question will be whether that’s a sole long-term solution, and almost no one argues that it is.  Everyone wants to see innovation and alternative energy sources that can eventually replace oil, but it won’t come in the seven years Democrats insist it will take for new oil production to come to market.  It would probably be a shorter cycle than that, but it will take decades to develop innovative new fuel sources and build infrastructure to deliver it.  During that period, domestic oil production would calm the markets, curtail speculation, and deliver stable pricing.

McCain alone makes the point that oil is a national-security issue — and in fact is a subordinate issue to oil and the economy.  It’s also a component of the energy problem.  The supply shortage has vastly increased the revenues of oil-producing nations, a few of which actively fund the terrorists arrayed against us in war.  For Iran, the ballooning cost of oil also helps them survive the sanctions regime imposed by the UN.  We need to get that price to fall if the containment of Iran is to succeed and to have any chance of avoiding war to get them to stop enriching uranium.

Obama provides one moment of humor.  When asked about his management style and how it differs from the previous administration, Obama replies:

Obama: I insist on the suppression of ego. 

Just as a reminder of the suppression of ego:

Uh-huh.

In the excerpts, McCain directly hits Obama on taxes as well as his more burdensome plan on global warming and manages an indirect shot at Obama as a redistributionist.  Obama sticks pretty much to script and at least in the excerpts never engages McCain at all.  It gives a pretty good look at why Obama wanted to avoid town-hall debates, and why he may have been wise to fear McCain on the same dais.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Taxing oil companies will not bring down the price of home heating oil, jet fuel or truck diesel fuel.

Those are the biggest threats to people and the economy.

Increased supply is the only good short term answer.

drjohn on June 23, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Is the “o-seal” maintained by an “o-ring”?

;-)

drjohn on June 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of.

Wow. Just…wow.

Slublog on June 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Well, if things go badly for Obama, at least he will always have his seal…

Think_b4_speaking on June 23, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Slublog on June 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM

It’s like saying, “We don’t have enough eggs, but getting chickens to lay more isn’t going to solve the problem.”

crazy_legs on June 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Obama: I insist on the suppression of everyone else’s ego.

Fixed.

MrScribbler on June 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM

crazy_legs on June 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Ha. I wonder how the Obamas do their grocery shopping if they don’t respond to demand with more supply? His statement displays ignorance on a massive scale.

Slublog on June 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM

McCain really needs to step up the attacks on Obama and the socialists on energy. We CAN drill our way out of this. Look at what the threat of US drilling has accomplished already. The Saudis are going to increase production by 500k bbl/day. They are scared of losing the hundreds of billions we send them each year. This issue really should be an easy win for the GOP.

DerKrieger on June 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Obama provides one moment of humor. When asked about his management style and how it differs from the previous administration, Obama replies:
.
Obama: I insist on the suppression of ego.

.
I think he means other peoples egos, Ed

Think_b4_speaking on June 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Obama: I insist on the suppression of ego.

He meant everybody else’s ego, not his own.

It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of.

Straight off the Democrats’ talking points memo. If I had a dollar for every time I heard some nitwit Dim say that line over the past week, I’d have enough dollars to fill my gas tank.

AZCoyote on June 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM

It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of.
.
Straight off the Democrats’ talking points memo. If I had a dollar for every time I heard some nitwit Dim say that line over the past week, I’d have enough dollars to fill my gas tank.

AZCoyote on June 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM

.
Better yet is the comment that opening up ANWR will take ten years to make an impact. Not only is this untrue, but they have been saying it for about 12 years, if my memory serves.

Think_b4_speaking on June 23, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Democrats have always focused on the “demand side” of any economic issue. That’s why the term “supply side economics” had to be coined in the first place. Today’s Democrats want to solve the energy imbalance by decreasing demand rather than increasing supply. Decreasing demand almost always requires heavy-handed government regulation of things like auto mileage standards, light bulbs. Just the stuff that busybody liberals love to do. Producing more energy doesn’t require the desk work of thousands of bureaucrats; it makes some people rich; and it doesn’t scold average people for their profligate lifestyles. Thus it is anathema to liberals.

This really is a very serious philosophical difference between the two parties, not just campaign posturing. And I am quite sure the vast majority of Americans are on our side of this divide.

rockmom on June 23, 2008 at 12:01 PM

If I hear one more liberal say “we can’t drill our way out” I will pull all my hair out. And they accuse us of walking lockstep with Republicans?

btw, if Obama is soooooo afraid of McCains (non-existent) 527’s, why isn’t he speaking out about Move-on’s stupid Alex ad?

ctmom on June 23, 2008 at 12:01 PM

“It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of.”

This is sooo easy to turn around on the Dems. If we had drilled ANWR back when CLinton vetoed the bill we’d be paying less now. We COULD have drilled our way out had we known in advance what we would have faced 10 yrs down the road. Isn’t drilling now even if the payoff is 10 yrs away not what a forward thinking society should do?

I want someone to ask Obama how alternatives are going to have an impact sooner than drilling for more oil given the fact that a) there are no viable alternatives, and b) even if there were we have ~100 million gasoline burning autos on the road today that will take a decade or more to turnover.

Alternatives are very long term.

DerKrieger on June 23, 2008 at 12:03 PM

McCain really needs to step up the attacks on Obama and the socialists on energy. We CAN drill our way out of this. Look at what the threat of US drilling has accomplished already. The Saudis are going to increase production by 500k bbl/day. They are scared of losing the hundreds of billions we send them each year. This issue really should be an easy win for the GOP.

DerKrieger on June 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Good one. The Saudis drilled their way out of dependence, didn’t they?

drjohn on June 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Who came up with the idea it would take 7-10 years to get oil produced from newly drilled wells to market? That’s obviously false, as even an offshore system drilling in thousands of feet of water can be online in 24 months if you have the right ships available.

The vessel issue is something that’s always left out of the discussion for some reason. It does take 7 years and a billion dollars or so to produce a 1000 foot long FPSO, but nothing says you have to use one. I number of smaller vessels — one for exploring, then drilling, then testing, then production, etc. — can be used in succession at any offshore site. Pump it, get if refined, and put it on the market. It’s not that complicated, nor does it take seven years to accomplish.

Re: the vessel issue, another thing that needs to happen is reform of the Jones Act, which was originally passed to fight piracy, but now dictates which ships can anchor where based on their flagging. It’s an antiquated provision that should immediately be reformed as a matter of fiscal sanity.

Blacksheep on June 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM

We CAN drill our way out of this. Look at what the threat of US drilling has accomplished already. The Saudis are going to increase production by 500k bbl/day. They are scared of losing the hundreds of billions we send them each year. This issue really should be an easy win for the GOP.

DerKrieger on June 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM

A big part of the chess game is forcing the ME oil producers off the tightrope game they play. Whenever we show interest in alternative sources, they open the spigot to lower prices and reduce interest in going our own path. Like any good parasite, they want to exploit the host without killing it. How else can they fund the process to replace our system with Sharia? It also keeps us in a subservient position. They like that.

a capella on June 23, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Blacksheep

If you repeat something often enough it becomes truth. The Dems want to use the 10 yr timeline as a way to dissuade us from drilling because they believe we will give up if we don’t get immediate gratification. They don’t realize many of us actually think long term.

DerKrieger on June 23, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of.

What the…

He is a typical moron liberal, I’ll give him that.

benrand on June 23, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Shale is tomorrow, not ten years from now.

drjohn on June 23, 2008 at 12:15 PM

a capella

I only hope the Dems don’t use the Saudis’ new found capacity as reason to block us from drilling. I think most Americans see that our relationship with the Saudis is not one we should have.

DerKrieger on June 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Wow. Just…wow.

Slublog on June 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Well, it’s probably true that we can’t drill our way to a supply that would meet demand. Once you realize that the whole ANWR thing is about an amount of oil that would constitute less than 5% of the USA’s daily consumption, and for a limited number of years (10?), it’s obvious that we’ll remain dependent on foreign oil and foreign oil markets until we come up with non-fossil fuel alternatives. That’s not to say that offshore drilling, ANWR development, and oil shale/sands development will not lower the price, which is the politically important point right now, but all of this talk of how a little extra drilling here will burst a global speculative “bubble” (if one even exists) is silly. The increase in the price of crude oil is mostly due to increased demand from the rest of the world, and the bulk of the “speculative” contribution is based on what kind of global demand speculators think we will see in the future. A small (on a global scale) increase in supply here in the USA will not change that calculation very much.

Big S on June 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of.

Wow. Just…wow.

Slublog on June 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM

I saw an Obama spokesman offer his explanation of this. He said gasoline consumption has fallen 1% (lower demand) but prices have continued to rise.

It did not occur to this left wing douchebag that prices would have risen even higher, and he was not challenged.

The Obamaniacs are rewriting the rules of economics in an attempt to take control of another huge segment of our economy. Can you imagine if they own the health care segment and the energy segment. There will be very little left of the private economy after that.

JiangxiDad on June 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM

It still irks me when people talk about “we can’t drill our way out of this” or that “we won’t see results for years”.

The oil companies have become vastly more technologically sophisticated over the last 2-3 decades. Once they have a site, they can plan and execute an operation within precise time/resource/cost boundaries. They can produce results within a couple of years – starting from scratch.

Alternative fuels? Sure, nice idea. Having diversity in our energy supply will bring much needed resilience. Relying on it as a solution is moronic, however, as there are no guarantees of success, economic viability, or timeliness.

Yes, we should learn a lesson from these tough times and become more responsible and conservative with our consumption, but at the same time we need to bolster our supplies with known viable solutions – expanded drilling & recovery operations, nuclear, hydro (tidal), solar and wind.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM

McCain sounds like a scared old hawk in that first question.

beefytee on June 23, 2008 at 12:26 PM

The oil companies have become vastly more technologically sophisticated over the last 2-3 decades. Once they have a site, they can plan and execute an operation within precise time/resource/cost boundaries. They can produce results within a couple of years – starting from scratch.

Unless they can magically conjure petroleum from any old place, there remains a limit on how much oil we can dig out of the ground. I’m not saying this to oppose exploration and development of our energy resources, but to point out that many of my fellow supporters are being way too optimistic about the effects on prices and our dependence on foreign oil. Even using the most optimistic projections for crude production, we would see ourselves going from buying slightly more than 50% of our oil from overseas to slightly less than 50% from overseas. We’d still be at the mercy of global supply and demand fluctuations, and would still be pumping money into the accounts of overseas producers.

Big S on June 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM

I heard another liberal trope about DRILLING OUR WAY OUT about how the refineries are at capacity.

Let’s build more, if that’s the case, but then, THEY EFFING DON’T WANT US TO.

benrand on June 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM

The oil companies have become vastly more technologically sophisticated over the last 2-3 decades. Once they have a site, they can plan and execute an operation within precise time/resource/cost boundaries. They can produce results within a couple of years – starting from scratch.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said that it would take up to 3 years to get an additional 2.5 million b/d online on their existing infrastructure. That’s not starting from scratch, and that’s from one of the biggest producers in the world, so I assume their technology wouldn’t be the issue.

I’m not totally disagreeing with you, I just don’t really understand the oil business. I hear some people saying it will take no time at all, and others saying it will take some time. I just don’t understand the process of pipe to tank enough to decide who I’m going to believe.

beefytee on June 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM

One thing I’ve noticed about liberals is what I like to call silver bullet thinking.

They are looking for the single, magic, solution that will fix a problem.

MarkTheGreat on June 23, 2008 at 12:33 PM

I believe the 7-10 year number was originally used in regards to ANWR. It includes building the pipeline needed to connect ANWR to Prudhoe Bay. Other places, less remote, will take less time.

MarkTheGreat on June 23, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Excuses, excuses, freaking excuses.

Idiot politicians are digging our graves with all their damnable restrictions and utterly incompetent ignorance of economics.

Getting off your ass and going to the store isn’t a “long term solution” to needing to eat, but you still have to do it or you run out of food.

Merovign on June 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Unless they can magically conjure petroleum from any old place, there remains a limit on how much oil we can dig out of the ground

Part of their technological advances address this very issue – where to drill. We have the upper hand here, as there are plenty of good, scientifically verified, leads to guide them. I don’t see the exploratory lead-time being a major factor. Not in the US, anyway.

Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said that it would take up to 3 years to get an additional 2.5 million b/d online on their existing infrastructure

With all due respect – consider the source. Although their infrastructure is grossly mismanaged, and somewhat behind-the-times, I find this claim very suspicious. These people have a history of ‘dragging their feet’ as a means of leveraging their economic position. If it’s true, then their reserves and technology are in far worse shape than I understood.

I hear some people saying it will take no time at all, and others saying it will take some time

The “no time at all” people are nuts – it’s a serious business, both in terms of investment, logistics and technology. Of course it’ll take ’some time’ to accomplish – welcome to reality. My understanding of things leads me to believe that new US operations could be productive within 3 years.

But as I’ve mentioned before, this doesn’t mean we have to wait 3 years before the price at the pump drops. Speculators will have no more sane reason to bid up the price per barrel once the longer-term future of our supply is secured. That means relatively prompt reductions in gas prices.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM

So Obama’s solution (like Carter’s) is to wear sweaters and reduce the demand for heating oil.
We should ride bikes and drive golf carts to reduce the demand for gasoline.
The real Democrat ‘final’ solution would be to decrease the population thereby reducing the demand for energy. (More abortions, Chinese single birth policy, expand euthenasia, and resolve Terry Schiavo cases sooner. Take everyone off life support.) The real question is when will Obama openly state these energy policies – before or after he is elected?

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM

While it’s true that there is a limit to the amount of oil that is in the ground. It’s not true that we have to worry about running low anytime soon. Big new finds are being announced almost yearly.
As the price of oil goes up, more people get out and look for the stuff.
As the price of oil goes up, fields that were once uneconomical, start getting drilled.
As the price of oil goes up, technologies that were once just engineers dreams, get developed and put onto drilling platforms, increasing the amount of oil that can be recovered from existing fields.

I’ve read that the US has more shale oil/tar sands than Saudi Arabia has oil. 10 to 15 years ago, the break even point for such oil was around $50/barrel. The break even point for coal to oil has dropped tremendously in recent years as well. The last time I saw the numbers, the US had enough coal to last over 1000 years.

As to your claim that increases in US production won’t have much impact on oil prices, you forget to factor in the inelastic nature of oil pricing. Just as small increases in demand can result in large increases in prices, small increases in supply can result in large decreases in prices. Additionally there is the benefit of not sending as much money overseas, which will strengthen the dollar.

MarkTheGreat on June 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Maybe the Obama gubmint can launch a program of free pyjamas and walking shoes for old people during winter?

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM

beeftee,

A lot depends on where you’re drilling. If you are adding new wells to an existing field, all you have to do is drill the well (According to the series black gold, Texas oilmen can put 30, 35ft sections of pipe into the ground in a single day. That’s 1000 feet a day.) and connect the well to the existing pipeline network. Note: drilling and pipe laying can occur simultaneously.

The farther the well is from existing infrastructure, the slower the drilling goes and the longer it takes to lay the pipe.

MarkTheGreat on June 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM

If you do not want to increase supply, then reduce demand.

To reduce demand, reduce the population, its simple economics.

If you do not want to drill for more oil, kill more people. Its ugly, but insn’t that what liberal, progressive, socialist policies all lead to?

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

The gubmint can also wave its magic wand and ‘mandate’ higher efficiency standards.

Don’t ask about them about the costs of such standards though. Unless you like blank stares, that is.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM

The government can do all sorts of things to gain votes – even if they don’t work and make things worse.

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM

It’s not that ‘the things’ don’t work, it’s that we didn’t do them right. Our fault, not gubmint.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM

In the excerpts, McCain directly hits Obama on taxes as well as his more burdensome plan on global warming and manages an indirect shot at Obama as a redistributionist.

As opposed to McCain’s less burdensome plan on global warming?

So sick of this crap.

spmat on June 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

.
Jonathan Swift came up with ‘A Modest Proposal’ nearly 300 years ago.

Think_b4_speaking on June 23, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Big S on June 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM

There is 2-3 TRILLION blls in the oil shales. We would become a net exporter of oil if this was tapped. The dollars would be coming back home.

It is really that simple.

unseen on June 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Well we could deport the 15million illegal aliens. The poor in Mexico use less oil than the poor in America.

By deporting the vast millions of mexicians back home demand would drop.

win/win you will also reduce government outlays.

unseen on June 23, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Drilling for US oil won’t work? Sure works for the Saudis.

marklmail on June 23, 2008 at 1:50 PM

I’ve updated the Great Seal of Obama to reflect his humble remarks on the suppression of ego.

Obama would rather demagogue about “speculators” than actually do something about our oil situation. Increasing supply will do nothing to… increase supply? Do I have that right? What is this, the Twilight Zone?

Gilda on June 23, 2008 at 2:23 PM

The thing is oil production, conservation and alternative energy are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either/or kind of thing. We should do all of them. I don’t think the Democrats get that. However, I also do not think that increasing oil production will have an immediate effect on prices. It might some, but a slowdown in demand would be quicker. However, we still need to open new fields.

Terrye on June 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM

The Libs scream “No Blood For Oil” yet they insist we only use oil from despots who we must protect with our military. The Saudis aren’t scrambling to increase output just to keep us from developing our own resources and forcing down their windfall profits, they are scared of losing their free-ride nuclear umbrella and friendly arms dealer.

McCain needs to challenge BO, the next/first/only time he sees him in a real debate, to postulate his actions if Saudis oil facilities get hit. This is the National Security question of the day that the Marxists are ignoring. Terrorists have already tried to take out the Saudis’ capacity, and, with the world obviously panicked about oil supplies, that target’s desirability has increased exponentially; the next attack is only a matter of time.

We need a strong economy. We need independence. We need to begin to wean ourselves off foreign oil and distance ourselves from despotic regimes. Oh yeah, if we can survive without their oil, then we are also free to threaten their oil infrastructure if they get out of line by oh, building nukes or some such foolishness. BO is wrong on this, will McCain be right?

Maquis on June 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM

However, I also do not think that increasing oil production will have an immediate effect on prices. It might some, but a slowdown in demand would be quicker. However, we still need to open new fields.

Terrye on June 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Terrye, I respectfully disagree. The market is as much a psychological construct as anything else, and fears of shortages drive it nuts. The Damns’ refusal to consider drilling psyche them as much as Venezuela’s posturing and Iran’s saber-rattling and general Third-World instability does.

No, we aren’t going back to the “Hummers for everyone!” mentality of a year or two past, but we don’t need to. We have pressure now to revise the energy paradigm of the developed and developing world, but we can’t do that if our economy and society dies first, so we do need oil and we do need to go for it now.

No one in the market is going to make money betting on further shortages when we are drilling like crazy and dumping ridiculous bans on refining and producing. They are out to make money, not throw it away. If supply-side economics worked, why won’t supply-side energy policy?

Maquis on June 23, 2008 at 3:53 PM

It’s like saying, “We don’t have enough eggs, but getting chickens to lay more isn’t going to solve the problem.”

crazy_legs on June 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM

“We can’t drill our way out of it.”

Why oh why aren’t Republicans out hammering this stupidity every single day at every opportunity? That’s all they should talk about, no matter what the question is.

I’m amazed that the Democrats think this is a viable position. Must be the echo chamber.

misterpeasea on June 23, 2008 at 4:44 PM

June 23, Michael Leavitt, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, announced the United States’ intention to open an office in Latin America to monitor food safety.

How the hell is NAFTA benefiting the USA? For whatever cheap shit comes in, we end up paying through the gut for the benefit of Mexican aristocrats. Mexican wage earners do not benefit from NAFTA. If they did, they wouldn’t keep crashing our border to work illegally here. NAFTA has brought insanity to dinner.

maverick muse on June 24, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.