At least I have principles over party. America first.....
Same ol' shopworn, hackneyed boilerplate. Like I said, Joe Hadenuf disease.
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.
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.
See, that's what I'm saying too!
Which brings to mind a pet peeve. It is the media that started the chatter of being a 'lame duck'. Now the media announces it was too soon to make that call. Why is the media allowed to determine when someone is a 'lame duck'? Even by conservatives? For record I don't believe most Presidents are lame ducks. They have enormous influence just due to the office they hold, what we are speaking about here is their image. For some reason people believe image = reality. It IS true some can be more effective than others at new legislation in a second term, but few Presidents would ever be so badly off politically that they are impotent.
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.
LOL Fred has sure come around. He wasn't too happy or optimistic at first. Nice to see he's realized this was a good selection.
Meanwhile, the economy is so robust that Democrats rarely mention it.
Always a sure sign that we're performing at the highest level, if Dems no longer speak of a subject.
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.
Well, I've always stated those that write him off are making a BIG mistake. His support among his base is higher than Reagan's at this time in his Presidency. G.W.B. is smart enough to understand in a country majority right of center, with increasing Republican majorities, that he has influence these people in majority "red" sectors need to win their re-elections. Without the base support they are nothing. This is his biggest capitol.
And I still maintain people who said S.S. and private accounts in some form is dead, will eat those words.
As to CAFTA, I remain undecided, but the aspect of countering Castro and Chavez is it's biggest selling point from my perspective.
Deal with it, sooner rather than later, and stop whining.
That's just wrong and embarrassing on so many levels.
This would be the socialist govt of Spain dealing to the socialists in Venezuela
http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.37%20Spain%20Arms%20the%20one.htm
So why do "we the people" hafta' have CAFTA?
I probably read/hear the same media you do and I've been made very well aware of it. The media report such stuff, daily and in-depth. They just don't head it "Castro Exports Revolution." But it's apparent to anyone who follows what's going on in Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, etc., and all of Central America that the grand strategy is to foment Marxist revolutions as with the Sandinistas.
Venezuela, which supplies a lot of U.S. oil, is a hotbed of Castro-exported Marxist activity, with the Chinese doing their utmost to get the oil they supply to us and helping to supply arms. Brazil is in very precarious political balance: it's turned strongly anti-U.S. in the last few years. Peru and Bolivia have been targeted by Castro's revolution for years. The only reasonable explanation for Bush's hands-off policy on Mexican illegal immigration is to bleed off some of the social unrest and potential for revolution that is nearing the explosion point. Having a hostile Communist country on our southern border would be a major problem.
"a decent percentage of republicans are against it"
Nah, the Republicans against it are an *indecent* percentage. :-)
CAFTA is good for the USA. The claims that free trade and free enterprise harms the economy have been proven false again and again... Anti-CAFTA was based on unfounded fear.
Engineering employment in this country over the last three years has gone up. The people losing their tech jobs in this country simply aren't keeping up.
BTW, this is a CAFTA thread, not a thread about India. Tech jobs are not going to El Salavador.
"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? "
What a rediculous comment!!!
Are better off with other countries being despotic regimes and communist states, or other countries being democratic capitalist nations?
Clearly the latter.
Let's not be so uncaring of the rest of the world we actually do in our own interests. This is good for the USA, because it will lead to prosperity for us and those countries.
"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."
Another dumb comment. What great central American enterprises are going to take over US businesses? If anything, it will be the other way around.
The Democrats are slaves to fear, unions and Government intervention. This trade deal is about hope, free markets, economic efficiency and reduced regulation. Opposing CAFTA means supporting higher consumer prices, lower export opportunities, and less economic freedom.
This deal means the end of Socialism in central America. So of course the Leftists will hate it. They hate capitalism.
The question is why people who claim to support free enterprise would oppose applying the concept in the north American trade zone.
Read post #39.
Same ol' shopworn, hackneyed boilerplate. Like I said, Joe Hadenuf disease.
"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."
hogwash. There are no auto quotas and havent been for 20 years.
These companies build here because it was the right business decision.
Companies who let Govts bully them into making bad business decisions end up bankrupt fairly quickly.
"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."
"free trade is simply a giveaway to corporations: =
That's Democrat-speak, FREEDOM IS NOT A GIVEAWAY. Translation: Free trade means that corporations are not captives of a single nation-state that could force them to follow certain regulations, whether good or bad for their future.
... "plants to lower cost locales" ...
Lower-cost means higher output per $, means higher standard of living. Do you have a problem with a higher standard of living? You really think companies can survive competing with the higher cost solution? You really think it's a good idea to protect high-cost inefficient producers just to 'save jobs'?
I guess you are aware that every job 'saved' by steel protectionism in America actually cost more than half a million dollars in lost economic efficiency. A study concluded that protectionism cost more jobs than it saved.
"We want sane trade policies, agreements and the use of tariffs and import quotas were applicable against nations that do the same to us"
of course this is what CAFTA represents - bilateral tit-for-tat trade barrier reductions. So opposing CAFTA on this ground is nonsensical.
"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."
IF a backoffice can cut costs say 30% by offshoring, then you have a company that is more productive and efficient. You are 'dead meat' only if you are doing a mediocre job in a job that can be done by less-educated foreigners at a fraction of the cost. In that case, I have to ask you: Do you really have a 'right' to that job if someone can do the same thing for 1/2 off? Does a store have the 'right' to sell you $2 items that you can get elsewhere for $1? So why is it different for a service employee?
If you are a *good* engineer, accountant, doctor, lawyer, admin, truck driver, welder, builder, etc., there are more jobs in USA today than ever; unemployment is down to 5%, near all-time lows.
One has to ask, given our amazing productivity, jobs, and income surge of the last 3 years ... if offshoring was such a BAD thing and is a big deal today, why is the economy doing so GOOD???
maybe the real lesson is that offshoring and outsourcing are *not* evil practices, but a part of an increasingly globally efficient economy.
Same ol' shopworn, hackneyed boilerplate."
Yeah I've "hadenuf" of the tired cliches that if you are not a whiny grumbling cynic, you are some kind of 'Bushbot'.
Phooey. I'm no 'bot. I'm a thinkin' man.
And ... I'm an Optimist. Life is good!
I don't see that at all!!!
see #55
You got that right and it WON'T be a Lewinsky either. :)
Hanoi Jane legacy = Traitor to the Unites States of America
willie clintin legacy = Monica Lewinsky
George W. Bush, Commander in Chief and President of the United States of America legacy = Dignity, Wisdom, Character and a talent for making A___s out of the dem/libs although our great Prez would never admit to that. Ha,ha.
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.