A Pro-Trade Party No Longer
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 Democrats who have never voted against trade deals vow to turn their backs on CAFTA. The sea change -- driven by redistricting, mounting partisanship and real questions about the results of a decade's worth of trade liberalization -- is creating a major headache for Bush and Republican leaders as they scramble to salvage their embattled trade agreement. A trade deal that passed the Senate last Thursday, 54 to 45, with 10 Democratic votes, could very well fail in the House this month.
[snip]
"It's difficult for Democrats to get through a message that we're pro-trade when we're voting no," said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who plans to vote against a trade agreement for the first time in his nearly 20 years in the House. "That is a clear risk that we're running, but I don't think we have the opportunity to avoid it."
Cardin and other free-trade Democrats concede that many of the Democratic opponents are motivated by partisan politics: They want to see Bush lose a major legislative initiative or, at the very least, make Republicans from districts hit hard by international trade take a dangerous vote in favor of a deal their constituents oppose. Dozens of Republicans in districts dependent on the textile industry, the sugar growers or small manufacturers have already said they will vote against the bill. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) privately warned Democrats last month that a vote for CAFTA is a vote to stay in the minority.
[snip]
Administration officials are inoculating themselves against Democratic attacks with a letter from former president Jimmy Carter imploring support for CAFTA. "Some improvements could be made in the trade bill, particularly on the labor protection side," Carter wrote, "but, more importantly, our own national security and hemispheric influence will be enhanced" by passage.
Other Democratic supporters include a who's who list from the Clinton administration, including former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Cabinet members Warren M. Christopher, Henry G. Cisneros, Dan Glickman, William J. Perry and Donna E. Shalala, not to mention the presidents of the CAFTA countries.
Since Rep. Cardin doesn't want to be seen as anti-trade, he could make it much easier on himself and vote yes on the trade agreement.
I noted several days ago that every potential 2008 Democratic presidential contender in the Senate voted no on the agreement. Add Rep. Pelosi in the House to the leadership of a party that has abandoned former President Clinton's stance on trade.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 07/06/05 14:09 | American Politics | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
Lessons on CAFTA (Washington Times, via PowerLine)
The Senate's narrow approval of CAFTA represents the fifth major free-trade bill to pass the upper chamber of Congress since Bill Clinton entered...
[Linked on 07/15/05 by PubliusTX Weblog]
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Yeah, but does Pelosi even understand what she's voting against?
If only the Supreme Court had issued a ruling in favor of CAFTA; then Pelosi would unquestioningly support it. =)
And in all fairness to Pelosi, she's been awfully busy updating her travel records. It's hard to keep up with so much at one time!
Posted by Anne @ 14:31 on 07/06/05
Sorry, still calling bull on the whole "They're all protectionists now" meme:
Let's see if we can identify the author of this, perhaps:
<blockquote>The problem for many free traders, like myself, is that the Bush administration has played politics with trade since day one. This has done serious damage to the fragile alliance that still supports free trade. The administration imposed utterly unjustified tariffs on steel, torpedoed the Doha round of multilateral trade talks by supporting a huge increase in agriculture subsidies, and has never missed an opportunity to demagogue China for all our trade woes.
Having destroyed the prospects for a multilateral trade agreement, which was primarily to be about eliminating agriculture subsidies, the Bush administration has tried to salvage some semblance of a free-trade agenda by pursuing bilateral trade agreements. Such agreements have been concluded with Australia, Chile, Jordan, and Singapore. Talks are underway with Bahrain, Morocco, Panama, and groups of countries in Africa and South America.
While the amount of activity is impressive, the results are not very great in terms of opening trade. Moreover, the heavy reliance on bilateral trade agreements may create future problems.</blockquote>
Was this the ramblings of some tortured formerly-free-trading Dem? A partisan spinmeister out of the DNC? Hardly. It was <a href="http://nationalreview.com/n...">Bruce Bartlett</a> in National Review. Is this concern a "strong statement" of his increasingly protectionist bent? ... or just an honest assessment that there are flaws with both CAFTA and President Bush's practice of liberalizing trade among nations? The simple fact of the matter that you consistently fail to address, Kevin, is that whatever our position on CAFTA, it's a flawed bill that had too many worthwhile reasons for rejection. Once more Kev, an occassional bout of intellectual honesty here really wouldn't kill ya.
Posted by Greg Wythe @ 14:22 on 07/08/05
Not all Dems are protectionists. Their prominent leaders have just abandoned the pro-trade position.
After all that spin (or "calling bull" as you prefer), we eventually come back to the role call votes and public statements.
Posted by Kevin @ 14:41 on 07/08/05
Voting against one trade agreement does not warrant "abandoning the pro-trade position." I mean it's not like a certain Texas Senator who claims to really, really be pro-choice yet cannot even dream up a single pro-choice vote to cast in a 13 year career. No, this is one vote on the part of many officials who have cast more than a few contentious votes on trade agreements in their career. It's one vote that even (some) conservatives are willing to admit is a flawed deal. If I'm "spinning" this, then so is Bruce Bartlett. Just a shame you're not able to look past the blinders there and admit you've made an overblown point. I mean, seriously ... the day you're using the same 'liberal media' that you devote other sites to decrying is, by most measures, a bridge too far.
Posted by Greg Wythe @ 15:35 on 07/08/05
You spin off into abortion and off into Bruce Bartlett and off into liberal media and other websites, and still, the roll call votes and public comments from leaders of the party you'd like to claim is pro-trade suggests that's not the case.
Anything else left in the kitchen sink, or is that it?
Posted by Kevin @ 16:03 on 07/08/05
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.