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.
bttt
LOL
http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/07/29/pelosi-cafta-dunce-cz_rk_0729dunce.html
Nancy Pelosi: CAFTA Contra
Rich Karlgaard,FORBES
Nancy Pelosi
NEW YORK - This week our dunce's cap gets passed to Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives. In coming out against the Central America Free Trade Agreement, which passed the House this week, Pelosi made the familiar (and disingenuous) left-wing case: CAFTA, written by greedy capitalists, fails to include protections for labor and the environment. Otherwise she'd have voted for it.
Yeah, right. Over John Sweeney's dead body you would. If Pelosi and her "petulant progressives" had their way on CAFTA, here is what would have happened:
— No American job would be saved. Low-value jobs are doomed to extinction anyway, mostly from technology automation.
— Poor Central Americans would be hurt. The World Bank estimates that CAFTA will create 300,000 new jobs in shoes, textiles and apparel.
— Honduras and Guatemala, whose legislatures voted overwhelmingly for CAFTA, would have to explain to voters why America stiffed them.
Support for free trade around the world would have been dealt a severe blow if the mightiest economic power had rejected it. Free trade has been an engine of prosperity and peace since World War II. To abandon it now would make the world a poorer, more dangerous place.
I view this "win" with a jaundiced eye. I remember claims that NAFTA would not create a net loss in US jobs, and it would improve economic conditions in Mexico so immigration to the US would not be as attractive. My lying eyes are telling me this hasn't been the case.
Very good...
Well, I don't recall then candidate Bush saying that, but if so, his critics were, and are, right. President Bush is also way off base on the so-called hydrogen economy also. President Bush is missing several opportunities to really influence the energy future of this country.
No, it will eventually be a big problem, but it will get that way slowly, over decades.
Illegals will still cross our borders. Guaranteed.
Jobs there wont stop them from coming here.
America is america, and always has its draw. We will still offer free social services like education (potentially in state tuition in some states) and health care.
We can argue over whether it is or it isnt benefical all night. That wont do any good, all we can do is wait and see.
If you'd like to make some sort of friendly wager, we can do that.
Here's an interesting article by phyllis schlafly
"CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada"
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html
Actually, President Bush scraped Clinton's program to develop an 80mpg car (by 2004) and replaced it with an initiative to develop fuel cell technology. Guess what, Honda is starting to market one and GM is closing in on their own.
Looks like President Bush is really influencing the energy future for this country.
If you are not smart enough to see that the Republicans are America in this day and time you are too dumb to vote. All of you folks who look for warts on Dubya and the Republicans and can't see the absolute evil in Hillary and the Democrats, and the end of America as we know it if they are elected, are too stupid to even be on free republic.
Some of you are simply sleeper freeper cells for the Democrats.
Your ignorance is the fact that I was referring to illegal immigration, not CAFTA. And of course CAFTA will not fix the problem.
Also who said anything about having the government step in to protect failing businesses? I certainly don't want that. Your ignorance hasn't stopped you from inserting words into my mouth, though.
Are you telling me you've read every single page of the 2,400 page document?
-----
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.”
-----
"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
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 are not smart enough to see that the Republicans are America in this day and time you are too dumb to vote. All of you folks who look for warts on Dubya and the Republicans and can't see the absolute evil in Hillary and the Democrats, and the end of America as we know it if they are elected, are too stupid to even be on free republic."
The hell they are. The fact is the republicans have moved leftward. If the founding fathers were alive today and formed a politcal 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!
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.
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!
Do you approve of forgiving billions of african debt?
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?
Do you approve of Bush giving $50 million to terrorist scum like Abbas, a planner in the 1972 Munich Massacre?
" Some of you are simply sleeper freeper cells for the Democrats."
Its unfortunate that you have to use that argument simply when someone doesnt march lockstep with the Republican party. My views are way way to the right of yours, I can guess that.
My guess would be that buggy manufacturers made a somewhat similar comment with the advent of the automobile. Sorry guy, educate yourself in the new skills that new markets require and go out and become competitive in those new markets. A job isn't a right nor is it an item worthy of government protection.
As an aside, government rules, regulations and taxes have more to do with whomever you work/worked for searching for a place to produce a product with sufficient profit margin to repay the investors who seek an equitable return on their investment. Who did you last vote for Congress?
Freedom is won or lost not just on the battlefield, but in the voting booth as well.
Have you been in a cave?
Voluntary private retirement investment accounts paid for by part of your Social Security (F.I.C.A.) taxes, that you can will to your kids if you die before collecting.
I love it when people tell you about how the buggy whip manufacturers went out of business, and how it seemed a bad thing. It turned out to be a good thing in the long run because new jobs were created out of the ruins of the old jobs. The only thing they fail to mention is, that the "buggy whip" companies aren't going out of business, they are moving to other countries. The skill and need for the products didn't go away, just the jobs. There is a point at which the consumers of America will no longer have the money to buy the products, 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.
The reason to fear an overbearing govt is the distance from citizen to bureaucrat. The distance from Bismark, ND to the WTO is thousands of miles.
If this "Free Trade" is lowering barriers, why does it take 24,000 pages of words to do that?
One thing hidden withing the CAFTA, is the giving of control of the vitamin and supplement industry, to the WHO.
Some citizens will not eat your cake, many in fact will turn to the French solution. Isn't that an ugly thought, a revolution with no goal but "burning" the rich? Course it can't happen here, not with so many middle class. Wait a few years until the middle class disappears.
Free trade and free markets are good things, but that isn't what NAFTA, GATT or CAFTA are. They micromanage details, from a anti-US bias.
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.