on the nafta thing, i feel that nafta is bad for the u.s. ever since it began all the manufacturing jobs have disappeared. most of the jobs that i now see our lower-paying. at one time we bring crasher everything here and had high- paying jobs. i was last down in mexico 1968 and the last time i was down there i was blown away at how many american companies like chevrolet and ford motors, washing machines companies now, all these american flags flying -- all these companies used to manufacture in the u.s. ever since bill clinton passed this as a guarantee to better jobs, there are not. the u.s. itself is becoming a third world country. host: anthony, thanks for the call. if not nafta, then what? guest: there are any number of alternatives. the majority of house democrats have signed onto a bipartisan bill, the trade act. it would better balance manufacturing job creation, environmental concerns, and other public interest concerns. it would bounce them with a worthy goal of export expansion. there are many alternatives on the table. host: we a

on the nafta thing, i feel that nafta is bad for the u.s. ever since it began all the manufacturing jobs have disappeared. most of the jobs that i no see our lower-paying. at oneime we bri crasher everything here and had high- paying jobs. i was last down in mexico 1968 and the last time i was down there i was blown away at how many american companies like chevrolet and ford motors, washing machines companies now, althese american flags flying -- all these companies used to manufacture in the u.s. ever since bill clinton passed this as a guarantee to better jobs, there are not. the u.s. itself is becoming a third world country. host: anthony, thanks for the call. if not nafta, then what? guest: there are any number of alternatives. the majority of house democrats have signed onto a biparsan bill, the trade act. it would better balance manufacturing job creation, environmental concerns, and other public interest concerns. it would bounce them with a worthy goal of export expaion. there are many alternatives on th table. host: we are joined fr

nafta -- you say the republicans killed that.l, nafta was actually -- al gore took full credit for that, sending jobs overseas. host: we will leave it there and getta response. guest: in my earlier answer, i said that was one thing that the clinton administration did that was the wrong thing to do. apparently the gentleman did not hhar that answer. host: next call, democratic line. caller: there is a fundamental issue thatti think a very large part of the american people do not understand. our country is run on a capitalist system, which means the government, the corporations, it is just basic economics. there is a lack of education. people do noo understand that money is king in it is, it will be, until we change some of our laws, some of the way that the government interacts with the company's. president obama is a very intelligent person who understands the bigger picture, and unfortunately we have many people in this country who only can see past next week and that is about it. host: given what the viewer just said, can i ask

congress with the democrats and the white house who had shafted human rights, organized labor, thrrugh nafta. by any other name it appears the obama administration with the and was different from so many progressive groups and individuals in the last year or more has basically engaged in a triangulation. to continue to placate the republican right wing which cannot be placated, and will never offer anything but opposition and hatred, to try to placate them is a huge mistake. we will not win many of these closely contested theeelections in november as democrats unless we can mobilize the base. we cannot mobilize with a bunch billion.ric or belated $50 another thing, jobs are crucial. the republicans claim that they will create jobs by funneling tax breaks to business puts to shame which should be a legacy of the new deal. jobs programs that create jobs. host: with a $13 trillion loominn deficit, how you spend additional money? guest: with fiscal austerity we could start with blowing ttese hundreds of billions in afghanistan. this war is catastrophic. one year ago many progressives were saying

there is just an agreement to make sure that the agreements we fulfilled under nafta agreed to by all parties. we are trying to promote law enforcement cooperation. the reality is that these are three sovereign, independent countries. we try to focus on the areas in which there is a convergence of interest. there are many issues in which each of the countries have a different point of view. host: have there been discussions about one currency? discussions about one currency? no, -- guest: no, there has never been any discussion of one currency. host: will in atlanta. caller: thank you. the graphic on the screen says his name is edward lee. host: right, that is his official name. the graphic should say it alex lee as well. caller: since you are the mexican desk, this national plan for conquest -- you could get a copy on amazon.com -- the roman catholic bishops conference -- its outlets in 36 pages in spanish and english -- it out lines in 36 pages in spanish and english out illegal immigration should be considered a blessing by the public church -- by the catholic church. we have a con

one of the things that the american people have to ask is if they support nafta. most of the incumbent's support this. if you vote for them, you are voting for outsourcing our businesses and our jobs in this country. >> ok. >> also, the lobbyists thing, we have to do something about that. it is very simple. we should put it on the vote in november. all lobbyists go to their local revenue office to give their contributions and then go from there to the democratic side or the republicans or the independence. do away with the lobbyists and it will turn this country around. the lobbyists are bought and paid for. they're not looking out for the american people and the american dream. >> looking at the brown campaign headquarters, he was elected governor back in 1974. he ran for president in 1976. he served as california governor and then served as mayor of oakland, california. now he is the california attorney general. now he is running for governor and seeking to reclaim the old seat. terry branstad will face checked coverchet culver. for those who follow history, jer

nafta give him some latitude to see if he wants to move troops here or there, add this or that. >> are you convinced that the president is committed to doing what is necessary to makk the strategy work given the discussion of a timetable for withdrawal and the time he does not -- and given the fact it does not talk much about afghanistan? >> i believe the president is committed to success. whether we have the proper policy which means the commitment to begin a withdrawal in the middle of next year, regardless of the conditions on the ground, is a flawed policy. the strategy is not undercut by that. in this strategy we can have confidence in. >> i am not questioning the motives. i think he understands the consequences of failure. if the policy of in the question enabling us to win, i would argue that when the caliban center around leaflets "-- when the taliban circulates leaflets saying the americans will leave you and they are using that uncertainty. the policy will fail he has the enemy is emboldened and as john mccain says, you cannot sound an uncertain trumpet in that part of the wo

i would just ask people to remember the importance of the debates over the approval of nafta, going back to the late 1980's. totally apolitical. then subsequently we are feeling the pain of economically, the opening to china of these wto, world trade organization, and the consumer debt-based 70% of our economy, consumer economy. we are paying the price now. what has been forgotten, and my opinion -- and i feel very strongly about it -- the role and importance of money, and named in particular foreign secretary warren christopher who, i understand, was the senior lawyer of the most prominent law firm in california who is a major client -- and this is the hearts of my criticism -- who is a major client was the government of wasa -- who's major client the government of china during the first clinton administration. host: thank you. are we headed toward a double- dip recession? caller: unless they removed barriers to employment. the government feels they can impose prevailing wages -- you can't get any city of pittsburgh government contract unless you pay prevailing wage. what makes a politi

and the white house whh had shafted human rights, organized labor, environmentalists to push through nafta. by any other name it appears the obama administration with the and was different from so many progressive groups and individuals in the last year or more has basically engaged in a triangulation. to continue to placate the republican right wing which cannot be placated, and will never offer anything but opposition and hatred, to try to placate them is a huge mistake. we will not win many of these closely contested the elections in november as democrats unless we can mobilize the base. we cannot mobilize with a bunch of rhetoric or belated $50 billion. another thing, jobs are crucial. the republicans claim that hey will create jobs by funneling tax breaks to business puts to shame which should be a legacy of the new deal. jobs programs that create jobs. host: with a $13 trillion looming deficit, how you spend additional money? guest: with fiscal austerity we could start with blowing these hundreds of billions in afghanistan. this war is catastrophic. one year ago many progressives wer

not just during the bush years, but also the clinton years, which brought as well the reform, nafta,unitive crime and distribution bills. it is true that there have bee a lot of major disappointments. the failure of major of legislation. the employee free choice act. four major public jobs initiatives to address the unemploent rises in the country. the fact that even with the most major environmental crisis of our lifetime congress continues to snooze on energy and climate change legislation. all of this is a disappointment, and i completely agree with darcey that when the administration fails to lead or maintains policies from the last administration that we have an obligation to speakup, speak loudly, and be critical. i would said the defensiveness of the administration about the critiques they have received from a progressive community has portrayed a poor understanding of the impornce of the independent movements to achieving anything significant in our country. if you believe my arguments that the change we have achieved is larger than it appears, it is also true that we have a

will be -- will we leave -- will we be looking out our windows in the interest of nafta -- national securityguest: there are privacy concerns. i do not think that any of the permissions for the aircraft that are flying so far have generated those kinds of concerns. most of them are being limited in their activities to areas that do not have a lot of air traffic for population. people are raising concerns that in the future when you have some of these other kinds of activities with drones and unmanned aircraft, law enforcement, where do you draw the line? will they have infrared cameras? there are so many useful and possible societal benefits that you can see and people are really excited about them. at the same time, there are all kinds of easily imagine the abuses. balancing that and protecting against the abuses at the same time you encourage the good uses is the challenge. host: in the past season of the series on fox, "24," they were using grounds to follow the good and bad guys on new york city. they would get information back like the lettering on license plates or what color jacket th

what i see is incremental trade agreements like nafta got, the north atlantic free trade agreement, and also the security and prosperity partnership that was signed in canada. these incremental trade agreements i see are a threat to national sovereignty. and what we have here is a gaggle of collectivists that are further seeking to channel power to the few, into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and in which people like me will have no say in the matter because these people are unelected for the most part and are untouchable through national and almost international law. what do you say to that? guest: a gaggle of collect vists. that's a new one for me. i'm going to remember this. because i think it does reflect a lot of concern that a lot of people have. the g-20 is an informal mechanism. it's a gruping of leaders without any bureaucracy, without any sect tat. they are staffed out by their -pown national governments. almost all are elected nationally in some form or another. but i've been doing a project that i've been asked to do by the korean government who will share the seoul g-

not just during the bush years, but also the clinton years, which brought as well the reform, nafta,ive crime and distribution bills. it is true that there have been a lot of major disappointments. the failure of major of legislation. the employee free choice act. four major public jobs initiatives to address the unemployment rises in the country. the fact that even with the most major environmental crisis of our lifetime congress continues to snooze on energy and climate change legislation. all of this is a disappointment, and i completely agree with darcey that when the administration fails to lead or maintains policies from the last administration that we have an obligation to speak up, speak loudly, and be critical. i would said the defensiveness of the administration aboutthe critiques they have received from a progressive community has portrayed a poor understandg of the importance of the independent movements to achieving anything significant in our country. if you believe my arguments that the change we have achieved is larger than it appears, it is also true that we have a b

not just during the bush years, but also the clinton years, which brought as well the reform, nafta, and punitive crime and distribution bills. it is true that there have been a lot of major disappointments. the failure of major of legislation. the employee free choice act. four major public jobs initiatives to address the unemployment rises in the country. the fact that even with the most major environmental crisis of our lifetime congress continues to snooze on energy and climate change legislation. all of this is a disappointment, and i completely agree with darcey that when the administration fails to lead or maintains policies from the last administration that we have an obligation to speak up, speak loudly, and be critical. i would said the defensiveness of the administration about the critiques they have received from a progressive community has portrayed a poor understanding of the importance of the independent movements to achieving anything significant in our country. if you believe my arguments that the change we have achieved is larger than it appears, it is also true tha