Fred Barnes: Bush Hadta Have CAFTA (The lame duck wins again)

PRESIDENT BUSH WENT TO BED at the normal time, roughly 10p.m., on the night the House of Representatives voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. But he was awakened by White House staffers to talk to wavering Republicans on the House floor. A cell phone with the president on the line was passed by Bush's chief congressional lobbyist, Candida Wolff, from congressman to congressman. Then Bush watched the vote count on C-SPAN before giving up. The total for CAFTA looked to be stuck at 214, not enough for passage. He went back to bed, only to be called a few moments later by Karl Rove, his political adviser and deputy chief of staff. Three Republicans--Robin Hays of North Carolina, Steve LaTourette of Ohio, Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania--had simultaneously voted for the treaty and it had won. Relieved, Bush went back to bed again. It was after midnight.

Bush worked harder for CAFTA--and stayed up later--than he had for the vote in 2003 on his Medicare prescription drug benefit. The White House, indeed Bush's entire administration, was mobilized for this vote. For days, Bush met with House members individually and in small groups. He traveled to Capitol Hill to address the House Republican conference on the morning of the vote, speaking passionately for nearly 45 minutes with no notes, then answering a dozen questions. Rove was deeply involved, too, making calls and office visits and having lunch with one House member whose vote was critical.

Why the extraordinary effort? It wasn't because the treaty with Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic was so important to the American economy. Exports from the United States to the six countries total about $15 billion a year. That's roughly the buying power of the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. True, the treaty does integrate the six economies more tightly with our own. And it has symbolic value: the big guy to the north embracing his little brothers to the south.

But more important to Bush than its economics or symbolism is CAFTA's national security value. Fidel Castro and his acolyte, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, are desperately trying to undermine the democratically elected and mostly pro-American governments of Central America. They would like to see the Marxist Sandinistas regain power in Nicaragua, for instance, and Chávez is pumping money from his country's oil wealth into that project, among others. (He also provides cut-rate oil wealth to Castro's Cuba.) Both Bush and the democratic leaders in Central America believe CAFTA will bolster their economies and strengthen them against leftist radicals of the Castro/Chávez ilk. Thus, in his address to House Republicans, the president devoted much of his speech to this issue.

A second reason for Bush's enthusiasm for CAFTA is his trade agenda. Presidents have usually gotten their way when they've pushed for more open trade, but after a half century, the free trade consensus on Capitol Hill has collapsed. Meanwhile, countries all over the world--in the Middle East especially--are clamoring to negotiate free trade treaties with the United States. If CAFTA had failed, Bush's entire trade agenda would have been off the table for the remainder of his second term. Instead, it lives. Why does that matter? To qualify for a trade agreement with the United States, countries must adopt the practices of democratic capitalism, which means a treaty might achieve what it took a war to accomplish in Iraq. In the past, trade treaties sailed through the Senate, but CAFTA was ratified only 54-45--and that masks how difficult it was for Republicans to put together a mere majority. The House has traditionally looked even less favorably on free trade.

There's a third reason CAFTA was so important to Bush. It's exactly what you'd think: politics. After seeing the prospects for enacting Social Security reform fade, Bush needed a victory. Or at least he had to stave off a Democratic win. For the first time in the post-World War II era, the leaders of a party made it their policy to defeat a free trade agreement. Democrats offered a series of unconvincing explanations for their opposition, but their transparent motive was to deal a serious blow to Bush. Had they succeeded, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi would be gloating on national TV about the demise of the Bush presidency. And it would be true. Instead, Bush is revived and ready to take another shot at overhauling Social Security, plus take up tax reform.

Two Republican leaders played significant roles in passing CAFTA. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is an ardent free trader and a genius at drafting legislation that only he understands fully. Thomas is also pragmatic. He allowed a vote on a bill requiring the monitoring of China's trade practices to come before CAFTA. It passed, dissipating some of the anxiety over China. The other Republican who mattered was whip Roy Blunt. He promised all year that he could produce enough votes to ratify CAFTA, and he finally persuaded the White House. Better yet, he delivered.

For all the media chatter about Bush as a diminished force in Washington, he and congressional Republicans have put together a string of impressive victories with more to come. With John Roberts as his nominee, the president is on his way to transforming the Supreme Court into the conservative body that Republicans have dreamed about for decades. Meanwhile, the economy is so robust that Democrats rarely mention it. Is Bush a lame duck? He sure is. He may be the most energized and successful lame duck in the history of the modern presidency.

If the founding fathers were alive today and formed a political party, the republicans would appear to be socialist light compared to them. If you can't see why, then YOU are too dumb to vote!

It is not a choice between what we have and what we want. It is a choice between what we have and something much, much, worse. As I said, if Hillaryski and the Democrats gain the Presidency and more it will be the end of this country period. Surely you know what they did last time and under Carter before that and LBJ before that and FDR before that. Do you want more of that? That is what you will get if you abandon the Republicans.

Do you approve of 50% more funding for socialist education, the most dangerous propaganda machine ever? Do you like having the homosexual lobby work just like the ACLU just to promote their propaganda and indoctrinate these kids? There shouldn't be ANY public schools! Dissolve the NEA.

No, I don't approve of the increase in the education bill but along with it we got accountability. The teachers and the NEA are squealing like pigs now and most schools are improving in their basic function. Neither the president nor the federal government have control over all that is taught in local schools beyond a certain base curriculum. Neither the president nor the federal Republicans can do anything about the NEA.

As I say about you and those like you, Keyboard Rambos is what I call you, it is easy to sit behind your computer and spout off and demand things that aren't politically possible, no matter how much you and I may want them. Eliminating public schools is one of them. Eliminating the NEA is another. I hate, just as you do, the state of our public schools. They are Communists propaganda machines as you say. I hate the homosexual agenda but I don't think it is going on in my area. To think this last education bill did all that is foolish. That has been going on a long time, before Bush took office for sure.

However, just shouting about it may help you and it may motivate others to do something about it too, but until then don't throw out the good just because it is not perfect in your eyes. Compare it to the options. The only true option is Hillary.

Do you prefer Reid to Frist? None of us is happy with Frist nor were we happy with Lott, but Reid? Come on! What about Pelosi over DeLay? Carry that comparison all the way down the line.

Do you approve of a prescription drug entitlement? More socialism, another program in which costs will rise every year. Once you give the sheeple an entitlement, you cannot take it away. Just like social security....it should not exist!

No, I don't approve of any of it. Now, Rambo, snap your fingers and make it go away! Do you approve of Hillary Care? Daycare for all so that the propaganda can start while they are toddlers? Higher taxes to kill our economy? Gutting the military again? Giving our latest military technology to our enemies? Zero control of the borders? Zero war on terror? Complete socialization?

If you are dreaming of some third party choice, forget it. If you are saying we need to vote for someone else just to teach the Republicans a lesson you are electing the Communists whether you like to own up to it or not.

Do you approve of forgiving billions of african debt?

I didn't approve of lending it to them in the first place. Just as we do all over the world, it is throwing money away. Worse than that it is helping those who are creating the problem. Yet, now that it is done, they are never going to pay it back anyway and saddling them with such a tremendous burden eliminates any chance of them digging out of the hole they are in so what is lost by forgiving something you are never going to see anyway?

Do you approve of the open borders? How do you feel about the senate defeating a bill 60-40 that would give us more agents on the border?

No, I don't approve of open borders but I prefer the present situation to the Clintons encouraging illegals to come here and eliminating any FBI background checks so they could register to vote in time for the elections, illegally. That is the point I am making. It is not a choice between perfect and so-so, it is a choice between so-so and suicide.

Do you approve of Bush giving $50 million to terrorist scum like Abbas, a planner in the 1972 Munich Massacre?

I don't know. That is a very convoluted situation. I think Bush is giving the PLO enough rope to hang themselves and it is all a part of a broader ME agenda. They agreed to the Bush Road Map and Sharon is making sure that Israel sticks to their part of the deal. The uproar over abandoning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is because that is part of the road map and Sharon is sticking to it because he promised Bush he would. Now that the PLO has agreed to certain terms, again, if they don't stick to it this time or ever again in the future, Katy bar the door. Palestinian state or no, they will be history. That is the true purpose of the Road Map.

Its unfortunate that you have to use that argument simply when someone doesn't march lockstep with the Republican party. My views are way way to the right of yours, I can guess that.

Yes it is. I get extremely impatient with you Keyboard Rambos who like to just shout out solutions which have no chance in Hell of happening, at least under the present circumstances, no matter how much you or I would like them. And to then turn on your best hope, perhaps your last best hope, of them eventually happening is so foolish as to be infuriating. It is obvious that abandoning the Republican Party is to elect Democrats. Whether you are working on behalf of the Democrats, as I fully believe some are, or not is immaterial. The results will be the same.

There will be a Republican primary with many to choose from. Pick your favorite and support them all you can. If they win, good. If not, don't go off and sulk and end this great experiment in human governance.

A 2 bedroom 1 bath house is going for $200,000 now just about anywhere.

Not in Texas. Wait, I shouldn't say that. We don't need any more immigrants.

The problem isn't moving to a different state where conditions are more favorable to employment, it is accepting a less than minimum wage job.

As others have said to you, it ain't necessarily so. It all depends on what YOU bring to the market place.

I have no problem with work, or money. I am a painting contractor, and am independent and busy.

With your attitude and knowledge of the market, that is amazing. Good for you.

I can see the day when landscapers and painter et al, will be low paid jobs. The solution is to become large enough to command a bigger market share, I realize that.

Is that sort of like losing money on every sale but making it up in volume?

How about those working under me? Shall their wages dip below $10 and hour? $7? How about $5?

Isn't that up to you?

There are people in Mexico that will do the job nearly as well as a journeyman painter in the US, but for 1/4 the cost. Is my obligation to my workers? Or to the almighty dollar.

Another personal choice on your part.

A Dickensian answer, is to the bottom line, of course that was before the revelations in "A Christmas Carol".

All answer to the bottom line, like it or not, sooner or later. Attempts to thwart that only delay it and screw up several more things in the process. Life ain't fair sounds cruel but it is just. However, it sounds like you are looking for mercy instead of justice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.