john kerry and sandinista leader daniel ortega.
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.
He is creating serious problems that need to be addressed.
The demonrats like Castro in power and dont' mind Chavez stirring revolution in central America.
Don't forget most of the demonrats wanted the Sandinista's to win.
How about a flat tax, and getting rid of the IRS?
Hi Dane!!!! :)
This is bad news for the American economy.
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.
I hate that all the time we are helping other countries at our own expense by sacrificing our wealth, our economy.
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.
Exactly. We are sacrificing our own economy to give other countries freedom and capitalism. But what about America? I generally hate democrats, but they are the ones who seem to be concerned about our own interests in this case. They are the ones who oppose selling out America's businesses.
I even remember how some of the usual suspects reacted Governor Bush the candidate for his opinion that U.S. automakers should put more effort into fuel cell cars; they blazed away, calling him out-of-touch and announcing that fuel cell technology was many years away.
john kerry and sandinista leader daniel ortega.
Social Security is going to be a real big problem and real soon. The Administration is just staking out a position for the republicans right away so there won't be any misunderstandings about who made this mess and who was trying to fix it.
LOL! democrats only care about socialistic/communist interests.
perhaps if you were working in a profession decimated by free trade, you would have a different opinion.
I just finished reading an article in the National Review on Daniel Ortega and Nicaragua. He is making a run at taking over the government through the judicial and legislative branches. See when he lost the election that tossed him out, he seriously considered a military takeover. The opposition cut a deal with him so he would honor the election. He was given a massively disproportionate amount of seats in their legislature(he owns them) and was given complete control over their judiciary(he owns them too). Now he works from behind the curtails getting the judiciary and the legislature to strip the democratic executive branch of all its power, the one branch that is pushing for democratic reforms.
Stop smoking that dope and wake up!
Lame Duck! Riiiight. Sounds to my like Bush was misunderestimated again...or should I say still.
LOL! democrats only care about socialistic/communist interests.
You are right. They oppose CAFTA because it gives people more freedom--the freedom to trade. Democrats are against freedom. They want more and more regulations. However, I think, CAFTA will hurt us in the end. We will see.
Close cooperation with the CAFTA countries is vital for securing who gets into this country. The monitoring of Central American sea and airports is important prevention against terrorists who wish to enter this continent and move north across our border. Access to these ports of entry by our CIA and CBP agents depends on such cooperation.
BTW, it's also important to have thriving economies to our south so they all don't here.
Like "wow", huh?
no one is talking about "economic isolationism". we had (have) trade policies on autos for example - import quotas and tariffs - that are responsible for most of the foreign companies building cars in the US. we want sane trade policies, agreements and the use of tariffs and import quotas were applicable against nations that do the same to us, or who practice policies like currency pegs to manipulate the trade balance in their favor.
free trade is simply a giveaway to corporations who want to offshore jobs and plants to lower cost locales, and bring in products to the US market tariff free. in our economy now, we create (net) almost solely service jobs and government jobs. if you work in tech or manufacturing, even in alot of white collar backoffice jobs which can be done offshore (accounting, financial services, etc) - you are dead meat.
This repeats a pattern that goes all the way back to the summer of 2001. We spend all spring and early summer hearing how Bush's programs are stalled in Congress, and he somehow gets a bunch of stuff passed right before he goes to Crawford. In 2001 it was the tax cuts, the education bill, and some other things I don't remember. The pundits all had egg on their collective face, and here we are in 2005 watching a repeat performance.
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.