Dem Presidential Contenders Reject Trade Agreement
Senate approves Central America trade deal (Jim Abrams, AP)
Fresh off a victory in the Senate, the Bush administration turned to the House in the drive to conclude a free trade agreement it says will promote democracy in Central America while opening new markets to American businesses.
The House vote, expected in July, on the Central America Free Trade Agreement is certain to be close, but supporters expressed new confidence Thursday after a 54-45 vote in the Senate.
The Senate win "was a huge momentum builder," U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said, noting that only a few weeks ago analysts were saying the agreement was in deep trouble.
Since then, the Bush administration has turned up the heat, with President Bush personally lobbying lawmakers and his trade officials dangling concessions on labor rights and sugar, the agreement's two most contentious issues.
Ten Democrats joined 43 Republicans and one independent to vote in favor of the agreement.
Abrams misses or ignores a telling fact about the Senate vote: Every Democratic Senator who might possibly consider a presidential run in 2008 voted against the agreement. Evan Bayh? No. Joe Biden? No. Hillary Clinton? No. John Kerry? No. Joe Lieberman? No.
That sends a pretty strong signal about where the party stands on free trade these days.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/03/05 12:19 | American Politics | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
CAFTA reflects Democrats' shift from trade bills (Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post)
A long, slow erosion of Democratic support for trade legislation in the House is turning into a rout, as Democrat...
[Linked on 07/06/05 by PubliusTX Weblog]
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Actually, it sends a pretty strong signal as to how much Democrats trust Bush to actually enforce the very treaty being passed. An amendment requiring strict enforcement of the very treaty was killed in committee. That's a rather indefensible vote that sent a much stronger message about which party stands where.
Posted by Greg Wythe @ 13:45 on 07/04/05
On the vote on the trade agreement, every potential Dem presidential contender in the Senate voted against.
Give that whatever partisan spin that makes you feel better. The role call vote pretty much speaks for itself.
Posted by Kevin @ 14:04 on 07/04/05
"Give that whatever partisan spin that makes you feel better."
Well, yes ... yes you can. But facts are facts and they're far more stubborn than voting records. A single vote on one trade agreement that would make only the smallest of dents in our trade patterns does not a statement make. If you had bothered to check the Bush record (which also speaks for itself), you'd be hard pressed to identify a singularly free-trade or protectionist agenda. Rather, you'd find one that bends and twists to the demands of a business lobby. How else do you explain a lack of enforcement on Chinese trade agreements for 3 years, a flip-flop on steel tariffs, and an interest in enforcing trade agreements that waxes and wanes with the political calendar?
But yeah, go ahead and keep dreaming that Joe Lieberman & Hillary Clinton are suddenly protectionist. I guess that's far more plausible given the partisan spin you're weaving here.
Posted by Greg Wythe @ 12:35 on 07/05/05
It was an up or down vote on a trade agreement. Every potential Dem presidential contender in the Senate voted against. That's not dreaming. That's reality. Check the roll call vote.
President Clinton embraced free trade even if large numbers of his party did not. This vote signals that major Presidential contenders in Clinton's party have abandoned Clinton's stance.
Apologize for them all you want and give it whatever partisan spin you want. The roll call vote will still be there staring at you when you're done.
Posted by Kevin @ 12:43 on 07/05/05
Yeah, I'm sure when 2008 rolls around, the biggest issue on the minds of myself and others will be over whether or not to allow the remaining 20% of goods traded between ourselves and islands the size of a postage stamp will really trump the big gaping debt we'll have thanks to Bush and the neverending mesh of corruption spun by Rove, DeLay, and Norquist. I mean, after all, I might be shelling out an extra nickel for a pound of sugar. Gee, I'm really painted into a box here, aren't I?
The biggest flaw you engage in with this post, Kevin, is the mistake that one lone vote signifies an entire policy statement written by yourself to describe others. If your characterization is true, then where's the ounce of disgruntlement over Thune, Vitter, Craig, and others being avowed protectionists? I mean, after all, the vote is staring them in the face as well, right? And what to make of this administration's own trade views? Are they free-traders because of this agreement? Or are they protectionists because of their 2002 and 2004 actions on trade agreements and tariffs? Which flip or flop on Bush's own views define his own policy?
The vote is what it is ... one vote. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no "strong signal" other than the fact that we simply don't trust this President on enforcement because of the spotty-at-best track record that stares us in the face. If you think you can apologize for Bush's enforcement record, by all means, give it a whirl.
Oh, 'nuther mystery to solve ... what was it that Saxby Chambliss got for his vote? He did, after all, publicly claim to be opposed to it, yet his vote certainly suggests otherwise.
Posted by Greg Wythe @ 15:13 on 07/05/05
I don't know. My post wasn't about Saxby Chambliss, or about the handful of Republicans who abandoned their party on trade to vote no, or about the handful of Democrats who abandoned their party on trade to vote yes.
I do know that every potential 2008 Dem presidential candidate in the Senate voted against CAFTA. They may have voted for before voting against the trade agreement. They may have even voted against the free trade agreement to protect the easter bunny from President Bush. But they voted against a free trade agreement. The roll call vote doesn't lie.
Your apologetics grow longer, but the length of the spin cycle doesn't change the roll call vote.
Posted by Kevin @ 15:51 on 07/05/05
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.