I like Fred better than RudyMcRomney, but Fred voted FOR Permanent Trade Status with China. Hunter voted AGAINST it.
Fred co-sponsored McCain/Feingold; Hunter voted AGAINST it.
Big biz won’t help Hunter out financially, because they want slave labor from Red China, so it’s up to us.
www.gohunter08.com
FRed voted for trade with 1 billion consumers. The previous and present administrations made the dirty deals. I have zero issues with that vote.
The CFR deal is regrettable, and FRed does regret it. He is the kind of man that can, and does, admit to his mistakes without spin. You saw him do it tonight, he’s done it in the past, and there is no reason to doubt he will admit to any others that he makes.
No one is perfect, and his intentions were pure.
Regardless, the reality is, at this point, for Duncan and Tanc, (two guys I respect), to stay only, diverts and divides. We are a party in shambles, we need as much unity and focus and we can muster.
True. Thompson generally does believe in free trade. However, he has acted in ways that demonstrate that he recognizes that there's a balance between free trade and national security. I've listed one example below. Another is Thompson's opposition to the Export Control Act of 2001, when he vehemently opposed loosening restrictions on what technology we could export to China -- he wrote letters, he tried to amend the bill, he argued vigorously on the senate floor -- but ultimately he was one of only 14 senators to vote against the bill (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00275 ).
I completely and respectfully understand that this does not go nearly far enough (and may be completely unacceptable) for many folks, including many Hunter supporters. I'm not trying to start an argument about this issue -- I just wanted to flesh out Thompson's stance a little bit for the record.
Congratulations on Hunter's performance tonight -- he did an outstanding job with the little time he was given.
---------
Here's the summary of Thompson's amendment to the Permanent Trade Status bill -- his amendment (which the senate killed) protected our right to impose trade sanctions related to China's development of WMDs and other weaponry:
Amdt. No. 4132: To provide for the application of certain measures to covered countries in response to the contribution to the design, production, development, or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00242
Here are some of his introductory remarks that give some insight into his thinking on this bill: "So it is a gamble. It is a gamble on our part that by gradually lowering these barriers to trade, by gradually opening up society, this trade will lead to a gradual opening up of society with the Internet and what not, additional travel and additional exchange programs and additional trade; that we will wake up one day and China will be a democratic society. And in the meantime, we will maintain their friendship so that the world will not be a more dangerous place but a less dangerous place.
That is the gamble we are making because clearly if this is carried out the way that people on both sides hope it will be, China will become even more powerful economically with all those great numbers of people, and therefore they will become much more powerful militarily. You only have to read a little bit of what is coming out of China these days by their intelligentsia concerning military plans and their view of the United States and the fact that many in their country see conflict as inevitable, and that they are laying the firm economic groundwork so that they can have a growing and more powerful military in the future. That should be of great concern to us. We are limited as to what we can do about that.
So we take this gamble, before that comes into fruition--if that is their path--that they can open up that society somewhat and lead to a more open society, a democratic society. On the other hand, the Chinese are taking a gamble in that they can open up economic trade somewhat, and they can adopt a more capitalistic society and still maintain dictatorial control from the top, and that it will not get away from them. Our people say that once that starts happening, once we get in there, there will be no stopping it; democracy is right down the road.
The Chinese don't see it that way. They are gambling. I think it is a gamble worth taking. I think it is a gamble worth taking because of our leadership and free markets and free economies and democratic society in this country. I think we should go down that road and we should take that chance. And I am not sure we have much of an option in that regard. But while we take that chance, we should be very mindful of the dangers that are presented to this country down the road from China and others. And we should be especially mindful of one particular category of Chinese conduct right now of all the categories that concern us, including human rights, religious freedom, and all the rest.
The one particular category that poses a mortal threat to the welfare of this Nation has to do with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that while we are willing to take this chance and we go down the road to trade with China, they are engaging in activities that pose a mortal danger to the welfare of this country. That is the subject of the amendment that I have just offered.
The China nonproliferation amendment seeks to do something about this. I have sought to have a separate vote on this amendment because I don't consider it to be a trade-related amendment. I have sought, for about a month now, to have a debate in the context of our relationship with China but not to have it as an amendment to PNTR. I have been thwarted in that effort. I only have two choices--either relenting altogether or doing what I said I would do; that is, filing it as an amendment to PNTR. Well, that choice is obvious. I have made that choice today because of the importance that I attach to it...
It is inconceivable to me that while we discuss trade issues and a new relationship with China, we will not address what China is doing to endanger our country. It is just that simple. That is what this amendment does.
I know people in this body want to pass PNTR. They do not want any complications. They want to get it done, wrapped up; the President wants his legacy, and we want to please our friends in the business community; and we all know trade is a good thing, and so forth. But it is inconceivable to me that we can address these trade-related issues and embrace our new trading partner--China--in a new regime without also addressing and doing something about the fact that they are making this world, and particularly the United States, a more dangerous place to live. The Federal Government's first responsibility is national security.