Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
No I have answered it twice. I am just sorry you dont like the answer.
|
- 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.
I'm sure you gave as good an explanation as you can.
Quote:
|
Like the Economist article said, a Democrat takeover of Congress would be disastrous for free trade, so a true free trader would not want a Democrat takeover tomorrow.
|
Only Nixon could go to China.
Quote:
|
Did I say they ganged up on Bush? In case you hadn't noticed Doha is multilateral, if the Europeans and the Africans can't agree on something, what the hell are we supposed to do about it.
|
In days of yore, many Republicans understood that diplomacy is a two-way street, and that sometimes you have to give to get. Now y'all seem to think that diplomats exist to explain that the other side hasn't surrendered yet.
Quote:
|
Assuming for a second the Financial Times is saying what you allege they are saying ( a big if considering your record), then why should we take their opinion over the Economist, the WSJ (and almost every american business periodicle), and the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable?
|
Well, to take just one aspect of it, if the part of the European press that is pro-free trade is reporting that the choice of American negotiators reflect a lack of seriousness and commitment because they don't have stature or the ability to deliver, that suggests that our approach to Doha is crippled. If the FT doesn't think you're doing a good job on these issues, what's left?
And the answer is, the American business press and American lobbyists. you are talking about people whose frame of reference is domestic politics. (With the exception, perhaps of the Economist, although they have a problem that I'm happy to raise if you care, and the WSJ's news department, as opposed to their op-ed page, but I infer that you're talking about the latter.)
In other words, I think we're talking about very different perspectives here. But you assume that I'm posting as a Democrat, rather than as -- say, a FT-reading free-trader -- and so you don't seem to be considering that there might be more to this conversation than "Bush is good" and "Bush is bad."
I started with the proposition that Bush hadn't invested political capital in free trade. If you're telling me that his heart is in the right place, in a way that's even more damning. He still hasn't produced. (And don't tell me how wonderful CAFTA is. Compared to Doha, it pales.)
Quote:
|
What is crazy, is that you think you know better how the Bush administration is acting on trade than all the American multinationals who have a strong vested interest in it.
|
You haven't really said anything about how they're "acting." You just keep saying that their hearts are pure and that business loves them. What actions?
Quote:
|
What hits should they be taking?
|
If we want Doha to work, we're going to have feel some pain. E.g., our sugar industry is going to have to be exposed to competition. But Bush doesn't want to take the political hit in Florida from the sugar industry, or from the corn farmers in the Midwest who make corn syrup. That sort of hit.
Quote:
|
Best for whom? Free trade? Are you kidding? Does the Financial Times think a Democratic takeover of the Congress would be good for free trade? I really, really, doubt it. No one with any credibility would argue that a Democrat takeover of congress would be good for free trade. Anyone that prioritises free trade wants the Republicans to stay in controll of congress.
|
As I said above, only Nixon could go to China. Make it part of a package deal.
This would be disastrous for Republicans, who would much rather have the issue.
