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.
What, do you need your buddy to answer the question for you?
Accusing me of being a marxist? Sorry, Im just quoting the 1963 communist goals from the congressional record.
You take the quote way out of context.
Just because we agree doesn't mean you are sane, but at least you have company. :-)
I agree 100%. Our nation is made of people who were daring enough to come to a new place for a better life. We are the most creative country on earth, and can compete and win against anyone.
Ireland cut its taxes and is now the growth story of Europe. The last time I looked, Russia, for all it's problems, was growing at 8% a year after two waves of flat tax tax cuts. Hong Kong, a tiny overpopulated island with no natural resources but with free trade and low taxes, is a world leader in prosperity.
I feel the pain from jobs moving out of our country, and it has greatly affected friends and family of mine, but less socialism, not more, is the answer.
The Dems are the opposition party and they are doing a good job of it, they oppose everything. However, you sound a lot like them as you are opposing so many things that are being done by the Bush administration that you, nor I, have any clue to the real reasons nor the fine print.
You know the old story of turning around an ocean liner so how do you expect Bush and the Republicans to turn the entire government behemoth around on a dime?
With Bush we have had tax cuts rather than tax increases. The economy is doing great and it would not have been otherwise. Those who complain about job losses should consider how it would have been with the Democrats in control.
We have had tort reform which has taken some of the steam out of the Democrat enforcers, the trial lawyers. That will also hurt their pocketbooks in the future.
Although not successful yet Bush is working on tax and SS reform. The Dems would have done neither and we would have kept heading down the road to ruin. If we still fail when Congress comes back from recess, we will have at least two more bites at the apple during Bush's administration.
We have Don Rumsfield as Sec. of Def. instead of some panty waist pacifist Democrat. We have Condi Rice as Sec. of State instead of a Maddy Albright lookalike. We have many other good cabinet members that for us conservatives are far better than we would have otherwise.
We are getting SC nominees that aren't Communists. In time we may be able to save the court for a number of years. What would you have with the Democrats? Judges who would say, "Constitution? What Constitution?" and the ballgame would soon be over.
Not all that has been done comes to mind now but we are far, far better off than we would otherwise be. If you are sure that your state is solidly red and that your vote won't matter, then do the rest of us a favor and just STFU. If you feel a need to bellyache don't do it publicly. Oh yes, keep on working hard to elect conservatives.
Make that http://thomas.loc.gov/
Being forced to fend for yourself and make it on your own is very difficult and depressing. We all can do it but not all do. For those who make it there is nothing quite like that feeling of satisfaction and self-confidence. You can't tell people about it, you just feel it.
The same is true of those who don't make and who don't continue to try. There is nothing quite like that depression and anger and it is especially frustrating that only they are to blame. Few will admit that but instead blame the obstacles, "Well, I coulda if it weren't for....." There is nothing like that feeling of hopelessness and defeat.
Unfortunately, helping them with government welfare only makes them more comfortable physically while the ache inside continues and the anger builds. No one can cure that but them.
"How true. Remember Japan Inc? They were going to buy all of New York and take over America, according to the Democrat and Republican protectionists. Instead, they got bankruptcies and a deep fifteen year recession for their misinvestments."
Yes, I remember. I'm in computer science, and Japan was going to take-over the world with their '5th generation computing' govt project. Never heard of it? Touche! The free-market solution of PCs and Win-DOS and Intel CPUs took over. If US companies innovate, US companies win.
What's really bizarre is you had the 'Industrial Policy' advocates claiming that 'Japan Inc' claimed success 'proved' that Government planning 'worked'.... failing to note that most Japanese success, e.g., Sony was simply private-company innovation and attention to customers and quality. Nothing to do with Govt planning!
Didn't stopt them. ... It just proves that Govt hubris never fails. Those same folks (like Robert Reich) never learned a lesson from the downfall of Japan since then ... and why not? You don't lose tenure and a 'talking-head' position on NPR if your ideas are wrong!
"But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these
days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."
--Karl Marx
---
So you agree with Karl Marx? Are you a Marxist?
Did you consider the possibility that Marx was as wrong here as he was on many other things?
"There is a point at which the consumers of America will no longer have the money to buy the products,"
Consumer spending is up BIG TIME this year and has been healthy for several years ... while inflaton is tame. why? With cheaper goods, we can buy more for less.
" because they will have jobs mowing the lawns and washing the cars of the rich(wait a minute, those jobs belong to the illegals).........nevermind."
If the 'rich' are American too ... so who's the loser here?
Average incomes are rising, unemployment is going down, productivity and standard of living are up.
The feared downside of free trade is really not there. More jobs are gained than lost in the bargain.
"There's no way Roberts is anything but a GUESS which Barnes himself has all but suggested on Fox's All Stars panel. "
We now have 75,000 pages of Roberts writings from the Reagan administration.
If Roberts is a 'guess' then everyone is.
"but that "buggy manufacturers are moving to the cheapest labor. There are how many billions of people, that do not live in the US, how can workers here compete and still afford a $200,000 mortgage."
Simple. By being good enough at what they do and/or in a profession that can't be replicated by some low-wage worker in a 3rd world country.
Being world-class at what you do - whatever it is - is the best job security out there.
What a pathetic little coward you are.
"I remember claims that NAFTA would not create a net loss in US jobs"
... that's funny, NAFTA increased jobs!
"it would improve economic conditions in Mexico"
... it did ...
" so immigration to the US would not be as attractive."
Immigration problems have nothing to do with NAFTA, and have a simpler source: We aren't enforcing the laws!!
A Great Man knows how to be polite in all kinds of company.
(paraphrase of Confucius)
LOL! Coming from a loser like you...thanks.
You can find the text of the agreement at www.ustr.gov .
We can't keep them on farms, but we could use the govt to cushion the blow to workers by slowly reducing tariffs and barriers. The problem has seldom been our country having barriers, but others. China is still not open, neither is Mexico. You have to have major dinero to crash their markets. Since the engine of the US economy is small business, the ones to lose out affect the country greatly. Even if the trade deficit shrinks, it is because of large corps going into foreign markets.
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.