Favre for Governor?

Brett Favre may be too old for football, but he is too young to retire. Oh, he could make a few bucks giving inspirational speeches and doing play-by-play TV or radio commentaries, but how about a real job----one that could have a big impact-----like Governor of Wisconsin?

Although the 2008 national election is still before us, it is not too early to make plans for the 2010 election for Governor of Wisconsin. Since Jim Doyle has a lock on the Democratic nomination for a third term, Favre's best chance would be to run as a Republican. He could start by buying or renting a house in Wisconsin (probably in Green Bay), registering to vote there, and joining the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

Is Favre a Republican? I don't know. But if he is for amnesty for illegal immigrants and campaign finance limitation, he's as much a Republican as John McCain, the party's presidential nominee. The GOP has been described as a "big tent", so I am sure it is big enough to hold the popular quarterback.

He could run, but could he win?

Minnesota elected former wrestler Jesse Ventura governor, and football is a greater source of state pride than professional wrestling. Jack Kemp made the leap from the Buffalo Bills to a seat in Congress to Secretary of HUD to the 1996 nomination for Vice President of the United States. Arnold Schwarznegger first won fame as a body-builder, which opened the door to a career as a movie actor; now he is Governor of California. Herb Kohl was too short to make it in basketball as a player, so he had to buy the Milwaukee Bucks in order to win his seat in the US Senate in 1988.

Of course, some athletes fail to win political office. Chicago Cubs star Ernie Banks couldn't get elected alderman in that city, despite two tries. Former Milwaukee Bucks manager John Erickson lost a senate race to incumbent Bill Proxmire in 1976. Older readers may recall that ex-Braves shortstop Johnny Logan failed several times to win the Democratic nomination for Sheriff of Milwaukee County, despite the catchy slogan "Vote for Logan and get home safe!"

But don't most voters carefully examine the experience and platform of each candidate for important offices before deciding which one to back? No, most people vote for candidates they like: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, maybe Obama. Polls have shown that most voters are not even familiar with the positions of the candidates they voted for!

That is why Brett Favre could become the next Governor of Wisconsin. He may not get my vote, but he just might be popular to win without it!

Is NAFTA Still Nifty?

Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agree on this: the US should threaten to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) unless the other two parties (Canada and Mexico) agree to re-negotiate several important terms.

For Senator Clinton this is an awkward stance to take, since her husband President Bill Clinton negotiated NAFTA and won Senate approval, primarily on the strength of Republican votes. If NAFTA needed to be "fixed" as she now says, why not say so then?

Big labor opposed NAFTA in 1993 because of fear that American jobs would be lost to Mexico, where wages and benefits are much lower and environmental standards much less troublesome. Many jobs have been lost, and big labor today is still against NAFTA. The problem is especially severe in Ohio, where the candidates will be squaring off Tuesday in a presidential primary.

NAFTA, a key component in globalization of trade, is good for America in many ways. Millions of American jobs have been created due to NAFTA. For example, Canada is Wisconsin's largest foreign market. Moreover, Canada (not an OPEC member) is the largest source of imported oil to the United States. The oil-sands of Western Canada are reliably estimated to contain about 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (1) Only Saudi Arabia, a much more risky source, has more. Under NAFTA, Canada cannot reduce exports to the US unless d0mestic consumption is rationed by the same factor.

If the US invokes its right to withdraw from NAFTA after a six-month period, Canada would be free to ship all its oil to China, where the precious liquid could command a higher price. For this reason, no American president is likely to actually pull-out the trade agreement. But if a threat to withdraw from NAFTA is not credible, why do Clinton and Obama believe that Canada or Mexico would amend the treaty to make it more favorable to American interests? Why would re-negotiation benefit the United States, rather than Canada or Mexico?

The trouble with free trade is that, even if it results in a net increase in jobs, some jobs are inevitably lost. Those who obtain new jobs as a result of reduction of trade barriers are often unaware of the cause of their employment-----they would attribute their prosperity to a good work record or top-notch skills, rather than to NAFTA. Their votes do not reward the backers of free trade; they more likely vote on the basis of national security concerns, taxes, crime, or moral issues. The beneficiaries of free-trade are widely dispersed, often over many states. Free trade does not pay-off at the ballot-box

On the other hand, those who lose jobs due to foreign competition are intensely aware of the source of their problem, and will vote against free-traders. The latter are also more likely to be concentrated in declining industrial areas, such as many of the older cities in Ohio, so the political effect of their animus toward free-trade agreements will be palpable.

This dichotomy between the winners and losers in the free-trade economy explains what we have seen in Ohio. The only good news is that whoever wins the presidency will promptly forget whatever promises he or she made to the unemployed voters in Ohio, and NAFTA will survive unharmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "US Warned on NAFTA", Associated Press, March 2, 2008