Clinton Criticizing Closure of Indiana Factory That Clinton Helped Close
In my upcoming book, The Uprising, one of the threads tying together the disparate forms of populism on both the Right and Left is a sense of confused frustration at a political system whose politicians employ disinformation and propaganda to make basic economic issues indecipherable. This has been no more obvious than on the issue of trade and globalization in the presidential race -- and Hillary Clinton's latest television ad (which is also a standard part of her stump speech) shows exactly what I'm talking about.
Clinton is airing this advertisement in Indiana, bemoaning the closure of a defense contractor Magnequench's manufacturing plant in Valparaiso (she is also echoing this line in her stump speeches). Looking at the camera, she tells us she's upset that the 200 jobs that were sent to China, and that "now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts." And then comes the kicker: She tells viewers that "George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't."
Clinton is certainly right that it is a tragedy that 200 American jobs were killed in a corporate deal that also exported sensitive military technology to China. But she forgets to mention that it wasn't George Bush who was in the key position to stop it -- it was Bill Clinton.
Back in 1995, a Chinese consortium, which included two Chinese state-owned companies, made a bid to take over Magnequench. Because the company makes key parts for smart bombs, the takeover had to be approved by the Clinton administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Despite the national security and economic problems with selling off such critical manufacturing capacity to the Chinese -- and despite the knowledge that such a deal would likely end in a domestic mass layoff -- the Clinton administration approved the deal. This same deal -- not surprisingly -- paved the way for those 200 Indiana jobs and that sensitive military technology to be shipped to China.
The Clinton administration's move was not surprising. This was an administration whose NAFTA and China PNTR record more than proved it was intent on helping Big Money interests face as little resistance to international financial transactions as possible -- consequences be damned. But the move was very controversial, raising the ire of key Hillary Clinton surrogate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005, "Bayh was particularly disturbed by the committee's decision in 1995 to approve a Chinese consortium's takeover of Magnequench Inc." In 2006, Bayh specifically slammed the Clinton administration's approval of the deal to the South Bend Tribune, saying "It's not smart to put ourselves in the position of relying on the Chinese for a critical component of a vital weapon system, and yet that is what the CFIUS process has allowed."
Unfortunately, as he has campaigned around Indiana with Hillary Clinton listening to her decry the Magenquench fiasco, Bayh has suddenly gone silent on the matter. Apparently, the power-worshiping pursuit of the vice presidency is enough to silence a senator whose constituents were so brazenly sold out and who had previously feigned outrage at the situation.
Luckily, at least some Hoosiers have not forgotten. Here's just one recent letter to the editor -- this one from the Merrillville Post-Tribune on 4/17/08:
Hillary Clinton must have been hoping we Hoosiers have short memories when she decided to take Magnequench as her main talking point in Valparaiso. Apparently Evan Bayh didn't tell her the company was sold in 1995 to an investment group, Sextant, that included two Chinese companies. Her husband was president at the time and allowed this to happen.In 1995, Beijing San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc. and China National Non-Ferrous Metals Import & Export Corp. partnered with an investment firm, the Sextant Group Inc., to acquire Magnequench.
The sale required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. That committee is chaired by the secretary of the treasury. It was approved by the committee even though it was known that China National Non-Ferrous Metals is run under the State Council, an arm of the Chinese government.
That same year, it was found by the U.S. International Trade Commission that the San Huan New Materials was associated with the Chinese government and was engaged in illegal practices that harmed domestic industry.
The Clinton White House had one more chance in 1999 to stop the move when the Anderson, Ind., plant shut down and started shipping the equipment to China, but it failed to act. Can we really trust a Clinton not to let our jobs and national security go overseas?
Ed Dixon, Valparaiso
Certainly, some will attempt to argue that Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton and therefore she is perfectly justified in criticizing what happened in Valparaiso. But that strained logic crashes into two walls of truth.
First and foremost, Clinton has been citing her experience as a top economic and national security adviser in the Clinton administration as proof she's the most experienced candidate running. Either you take her at her world and you believe her experience in the administration was very real and very serious, or she's the most inexperienced person ever to make a major bid for president of the United States. I, for one, take her at her word about her experience -- and that means it is perfectly appropriate -- nay, essential -- to ask her to answer for major decisions like the Clinton administration's approval of a deal shipping sensitive military technology to the Chinese and eliminating critical jobs in an economically hard-hit part of the heartland. And let's not forget -- Hillary Clinton was an outspoken supporter of the China PNTR deal that helped smooth these kinds of deals for the long-haul.
Then there's the issue of blame. Even if you somehow don't think Clinton should have to answer for a major policy of the administration she brags about working in, it's hard to argue that she's being forthright by airing an ad blaming the deal on George Bush -- and not on Bill Clinton. After all, her ad is saying that Bush should have used the Committee on Foreign Investments to stop the outsourcing -- when Clinton should have used the very same Committee to stop the whole thing in the first place.
And that gets us back to the intense sense of outrage brewing all over the country. It is an outrage inherent in Ed Dixon's letter to the editor -- one that suggests more and more Americans know they are be treated like fools. Politicians like Clinton head to Indiana airing ads pretending to care about economic havoc that they helped sow, denying their own long-record of advocating for NAFTA, then manufacture staged photo-ops so that the national press corps can snap pictures of them downing a shot of whiskey -- as if that proves their down-home credentials. But more Americans have a sense that something is wrong -- that these politicians are lying to them in a desperate attempt at election-year pandering.
It is this awakening and corresponding outrage that is now being channeled into a populist uprising on both the Right and Left. And as my book will show, that populism is not just impacting the presidential election, but changing American politics before our eyes.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This has been the CENTERPIECE of Hillary's campaign for the last two weeks!
but it was sold in 1995 under President Clinton, when GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS was a Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy!
How is can Stephanopoulos claim to be objective on this when he interviews her on Sunday?
Rove playbook. Hillary and Bush have so much in common. There is no depth their buckets of slime.
This is the David Sirota who wrote the learned essay "proving" that Hillary's voters are all racist, right?
I'll say it once. Protectionism is the top countries of the world leads to one thing: world war and depression.
This has become so routine. Hillary says one thing, then changes her stance if it wins her votes. She has to be the most untrustworthy person- even for a politician- I have ever seen.
Funny...Hillary is now trying to wag the dog. http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
again, wow
But I'll bet all of those laid off workers, those "white, blue collar" males and their offspring would just love to throw back a shot and a beer with the little lady; after all, she's one of them, and hey, they're not bitter, are they?
Rednecks for Clinton '08
Hillary leads in Indiana - no one cares regarding her "mis-remembering", or her ethics, or her Operation Chaos wins. They don't care how poor her campaign has been run, her big money donors, her flip flopping and her use of Republican talking points. But they'll never vote for Obama because of the snippets they hear regarding his former Pastor.
Obama needs to address this. His unwillingness to confront Hillary's lies is making me lose respect for him. There is a difference between a positive campaign and a weak campaign. He has to be stronger.
ph --
I agree. He doesn't have to appear to be negative by questioning her truthfulness or sincerity -- which is really what this is all about.
I wish the person(s) on his staff who is/are respsonsible for keeping up with the daily trash, would address some of these outrageous inconsistencies the Clintons come up with.
I'm sure Stephanopoulos will set the record straight when he talks to her for an hour on Sunday.
Oh wait, he was a Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy for the Clintons when it was sold.
What a crock!
He said today at a town hall in N.C. this afternoon that he's holding a presser regarding this issue later today.
Obama has addressed this , over and over again. And every time he does , he comes out looking better. Why does Hillary do this? Her campaign comes out looking dishonest and shrill. Keep it up Hillary, you doing wonders for Obama.
So? As Hillary would say.
To cap off a completely stressful day as an Obama supporter, I must ask, with resignation, whether the outrage you point to is actually materializing? You quote an excellent letter to the editor, but is the media in Indy running with this? Or is she getting a free pass? And what about Bayh? When I see the polls showing the HRC will not only win Indiana, but will do so, at a minimum, with a high single digit, it suggests to me that this is not being talked about in Indiana, or that people don't care because they are still so snowed by the Bill Clinton administration. So if she is going to carry Indiana in spite of this, is there hope left?
Any why is the RNC not talking about this? I am not hoping for them to do it, so much as I am just baffled at their Hillary blackout while going after Obama. Wouldn't it be ironic if they wasted months and months criticizing a man who may not get nominated, and waited too long to go after HRC and Bill walks away with his third term? Don't get me wrong, that would be better than President McCain, in the sense that vomitting slightly in your mouth isn't as bad as blowing chunks full out.
What is also completely amazing is that Bill is going around the countryside of these affected states telling one and all how much She Who Shall Remain Nameless cares about their plight. So, is he implying that he didn't, cause going by his Administrations actions, it would appear to be that he didn't. This really needs to become a major talking point. How much more can Americans endure, just so that one couple can once again envelope themselves in a bubble of self entitlement?
Bill Clinton Forms New Organization: Clowns 'r' Us
Wouldn't it be nice if anyone in the MSM cared about stuff like this? And I guess it's too much to hope we'll ever hear mention of the Paul v. Clinton trial. I wonder how Bill and Hillary got the judge to delay Hillary's testimony till after the election. Won't that be an auspicious start should she somehow get elected (God forbid).
why does it say there have only been 21 comments made on this post?
The attention its getting should be noted.
See, this is why I am so tired of the Clintons, it seems crazy that she wouldn;t know this.
So she probably did. She is using the 1990's political playbook, people are more informed
with the internet and the bloggers times have changed. Maybe she thought no one would blame this more recent closing with the Clinton Administration.
That is why I like Sen. Obama, he doesn't talk down to the people and tells the truth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
