So I'm not alone in thinking that. Others call me crazy for even suggesting it.
Posted on 07/30/2005 6:49:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
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.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
So I'm not alone in thinking that. Others call me crazy for even suggesting it.
This is crazy also, but I believe that the protectionist camp here is divided into bona-fide paleos, those who wish to see Republicans suffer (3rd Party, Dem, or otherwise), and a number of folks who either post under multiple names, or periodically re-register in order to appear "fresh." The common thread, of course, being that they all sound the same.
The manifestation of intellectual vapidness.
None of the CAFTA countries are on our border. How does this equate to borde security? What a stretch.
No.
All of the CAFTA countries except one are Central American countries that are a short land distance from the border of Mexico and the rest of Central America. Our land border with Mexico is hard to control. The prevention of terrorists entering our country along our southern border can be helped greatly by the cooperation of the CAFTA countries and how they control sea and airports into their country.
Your view is narrow.
Which would then validate treating them like political enemies. I can dig it.
As soon as someone calls me/implys that I'm a traitor, it's weapons-free.
Wanna put some money where your delusions are? How many privately owned fuel cell vehicles will have been purchased in the US by 12/31/08?
"The manifestation of intellectual vapidness."
Ah, you're quite adept at describing what you see in the mirror.
I have an interesting and educational exercise for you.
Try reading the following list of communist goals from the 1963 congressional record:
From the 1963 Congressional Record, Communist Goals
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
If you agree with the above quote, and the rest of the items on that list...you're probably on the wrong website.
" 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."
Sorry, to me that isn't a choice. We know the democraps are the worst party scum sucking commies ever, with the masterful propagandists, the MSM in their pocket. However, I am weary when I see the opposition party also support socialist programs. Aren't you? What happened to the party of less government?
"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."
Keyboard rambos, I like that! There's nothing wrong with having ideals, and yes many of these goals could be accomplished if the right leaders would step forward. The government should have no role in educating children, especially with the socialist NEA in charge.
"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."
Who said I wanted reid in charge? My state has been and always will be solidly red. My vote matters little.
As I said, for me, it really isnt a choice when you vote AGAINST someone. This election I voted FOR Bush. If I knew then what I know now, my vote would be AGAINST Kerry. Do you see the nuance?
"Zero control of the borders? Zero war on terror? Complete socialization?"
Again, I don't see much control of our borders from Bush. How can one fight a war on terror when the soft underbelly of america is exposed? Everyone knows to win, you must have a good offense as well as a good defense. Complete socialization? I still see the proliferation of socialism under Republican leadership. The analogy I use quite often is Vote Democrat: a fast forward button to socialism
Vote Republican: a small yet ineffective brake on socialism.
"No, I don't approve of open borders but I prefer the present situation to the Clintons encouraging illegals to come here"
Puh-leeze. Don't try and pin this all on the clintons, Bush has done plenty to encourage illegal immigration. Don't you remember the news stories of the massive influx of illegal aliens a year or two ago after the trial balloons about amnesty/guest worker programs were floated? What about his discouraging words calling the minutemen "vigilantes", patriots who want to enforce laws that this nation wont enforce?
"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."
I put my money where my mouth is, I do work to get conservatives elected. I worked on the Kris Kobach campaign for KS 3rd congressional district, who would have likely been one of the most conservative members of congress. Unfortunately he lost to a socialist Dennis Moore who ran ads calling him a white supremacist last minute, and it worked.
The only candidates I would support in 2008 is George Allen or Tom Tancredo. I highly doubt Tancredo could ever get the nomination, he just isn't presidential. He has been forceful in bringing important issues to the forefront.
Either way, my state is bright red, and always has been. So my vote or non vote doesn't matter much....
Keep your money, it will help you to avoid the truth.
Your reply is non-responsive, and implys that you have an affinity for Marxist dogma. Anything else we should know in advance?
It implies that you can't refute the fact that communist goals include free trade:
rom the 1963 Congressional Record, Communist Goals
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
BTW, cafta was about more than just free trade...that much is obvious. To define "free trade" doesn't take 2,400 pages
-----
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1436446/posts
“This agreement will allow foreign companies to challenge our immigration policies in international CAFTA tribunals and argue that the laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector,” said Tancredo. “That would force Congress to change our immigration laws, or subject our businesses to trade sanctions.”
“If this agreement is approved, the ‘exclusive’ power of Congress to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals – the same way that Congress ceded its once supreme Constitutional authority to ‘regulate commerce with foreign nations’ to the WTO.”
Check this out. I believe I have either a bona-fide Marxist on my hands, or someone who is incapable of understanding that the Communist Party "platform" circa 1963 incorporates Marxist thought circa 1848, and that he or she agrees with both.
LOL! No, that would be an area where you cannot be challenged...you've mastered it so throughly. As I originally said, there are people who originally complained that the President was out of touch when he pointed auto makers towards fuel cell cars...now they're just po'ed because it's happening. Good.
Where can I see all 2,400 pages of CAFTA?
>> Listen, if you use the prefix "neo," it's ok to use "paleo."
What is your point?
You would think that the John Birchers who champion themselves at the front of the fight against communism might embrace an agreement that almost certainly ensures that the communists will not regain their foothold in Central America.
But no. Expecting a rational approach from them would be expecting too much.
It doesn't really matter. They lost this fight, like they lose every fight. And then they vow never to vote Republican again for the hundredth time.
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.