Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone with any political sense knew that it was incredibly tough to pass CAFTA with all the Unions and the Dems united behind it. That is why I said: "He spent all sort of political capital to get unanimity. He got lots of Congressment, from strong Unions states like Michigan, to vote in favor of CAFTA. That didn't come cheap."
|
I apologize for omitting that crucial detail from my synopsis of our exchange. The synopsis should have read:
- Spanky: Bush busted his derriere to get CAFTA passed.
Me: How so?
Spanky: He invested a lot of political capital to get it through.
Me: In what way did Bush spend political capital on CAFTA?
Spanky: He got it through didn't he?
Me: Can't come up with anything, huh?
Spanky: I already told you twice. . . He spent all sort of political capital to get unanimity. . . . That didn't come cheap.
Like George W. Bush, you seem to think that saying the same superficial nonsense over and over and over again is convincing and responsive.
Bush's record on free trade is a lot of happy talk and lip service (not the Clinton kind), and little to nothing to show for it. This is because he chose to spend his political capital on other things -- tax cuts, invading Iraq, attempting to gut Social Security.
Having explained that the Republican Party is the party of free trade and should be re-elected on that basis, you simultaneously say that Bush spent major capital getting his Congressmen from his own party to vote for free trade. Stop and think about that for a second.
Quote:
This is complete drivel. When it comes to Doha the dispute is between the EU and the third world. All we can do is try to mediate.
|
You don't know what you're talking about. Try reading, say,
The Economist. After the talks collapsed this summer, the July 24 issue observed:
- The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies.
Now, it takes two to tango, and I'm not saying that the U.S. is solely to blame. But your little song and dance of pretending that the U.S. had nothing to do with Doha's failure is about as credible as your insistence that George Bush had to go to the mat to get Republicans to pass CAFTA.
Quote:
When did the Financial Times become the entire Eurpean Pro Free trade press. Doesn't the economist count? Why can't you cite anyone else (or hell why can't you cite the FT?).
|
Oops.
Quote:
I am a free trader. You are not. Give me a break. You argued with me on CAFTA. Was the FT against CAFTA? Did they think it was bad because Bush didn't consult the Dems (in other words put more riders in that sucked up to the Unions)? We argued for pages and pages about CAFTA. My position was the same as the Economist. That is the Free Traders bible and you constantly argue against their positions.
|
Having watched you define "liberal" today, I'm not going to argue with you about whether I am a "free trader," since you seem to use political labels in a different manner than most of the functionally literate population. Suffice it to say that most people would call me a free trader.
Quote:
You said Bush was pushing free trade just because he was sucking up to business.
|
That's not what I said, and if you think I said that then you are either inattentive or functionally illiterate.
Quote:
You are the only one on the planet that thinks the Dems will step up on free trade.
|
I didn't say that, either. Is it so hard to read what I say and respond to that instead of foaming at the mouth about random crap? (Please note that this is my bid to seed the next board title when Penske takes the K.)
Quote:
You are just trying to rationalize a Democrat takeover.
|
No. I'm just arguing that Bush has been a huge disappointment from a free-trade perspective. No matter who is elected to Congress tomorrow, that tiger is not about to change his stripes.
