RE: FWD: MAI again. Question for Max. (fwd)

[Sid Shniad <shniad@xxxxxx>]

> Subject: RE: FWD: MAI again. Question for Max.
>
> well, that's all up to us, isn't it?
>
> it's true that the senate is traditionally more pro-"free trade" than the
> house. on the other hand, as a treaty they will need a supermajority. on the
> other hand, the senate is way more pro-"free trade" than the house.
>
> i would say that if the Admin. succeeds in portraying it as an agreement to
> "open up foreign markets to US investment/business" it will sail thru.
>
> if, on the other hand, the Forces of Progress succeed in portraying it as
> "NAFTA on steroids," strengtening corporate rule, undermining minority
> preferences, local economic development, sovereignty, etc., it is dead in
> the water.
>
> recently the Mo has been on our side, with chinks in the media blackout
> (e.g. front-page Chicago Trib.) Such publicity the MAI probably can not
> survive. Time is not on their side. Delay is good.
>
> -bob naiman
>
> >
> > Business Week, the 15 December issue with the special advertising
> > section on outsourcing, noted that Clinton will submit MAI as a treaty,
> > thereby circumventing the House.  Will it win.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 916-898-5321
> > E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
>
>