The Ugly Coming True

by: David Sirota

Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 13:20

In my last post, I noted that there could be a very ugly side to Nancy Pelosi's move to delay a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Well, it seems like that ugly side could be coming true. Here's CongressDaily:

House Democratic leaders are seriously considering delaying a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement until after the November elections, thereby providing needed cover for vulnerable rank-and-file members, according to senior Democratic leadership sources.

CongressDaily says the lame-duck plan is gaining momentum, and that - despite polls showing the vast majority of Americans opposing this NAFTA-style trade policy - Democrats say killing the deal "is not seen as a viable political option."

David Sirota :: The Ugly Coming True

Tags: Strategery, free trade, Colombia, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

The Ugly Coming True | 7 comments

Oh... why am I NOT surprised. (4.00 / 2)

Also, we wouldn't want to know JUST who is involved in these trade negotations just before the PA primary would we...

Nothing to see here folks move along, move along...

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 17:42:38 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

She is a huge, huge disappointment. (0.00 / 0)

Impeachment is off the table and so is fair trade. She needs to be primaried. Oh wait, she passed a higher minimum wage - now we are all safe.

by: dkmich @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 22:06:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

what are the pressures? (0.00 / 0)

What are the pressures against this move? Corporate donations? A non-trivial section of the voting base in favor? Fear of being portrayed as "anti-growth" by the media and pundits? Curious to learn...

by: sdedeo @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 18:57:32 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The potentially ugly is lobbyist asking for their bribes back (0.00 / 0)

err rather, campaign contributions.

It's easy to explain that you love the bribe, err campaign contribution, and will gladly defy the will of the voter. Just poor some expensive drinks and have a little chat about needing to until after the voter has lost their opportunity to register their displeasure.

Lobbyists understand and sympathize. And I'm sure they won't take away the congressional perks once they have a handshake on the plan.

After all, this is America. We wouldn't want the masses to suddenly get uppity and decide to make it a democracy.

by: jello5929 @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 19:16:30 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This really is a bit ugly (4.00 / 1)

I commented on Mr. Sirota's earlier post that I didn't like the Colombia FTA, but that I also don't think it's a particularly big deal if it passes. Nevertheless, this is pretty shady. If you think the deal is good, vote for it now. Don't hide and vote on it after the election. That just makes plain that they want to do the bidding of their corporate masters without facing the electoral consequences.

But the more I think about this, the less it makes sense. Why do they need to give cover to rank and file members? Who are the Republican challengers that are going to make an issue of a Democrat voting in favor of a trade agreement? That's not a common occurrence in my experience. Moreover, they could go ahead and have the vote, and if it passes, we can be pretty sure that more or less all of the Republicans would vote for it, so any Democratic challenger who wanted to make an issue of this agreement could do so in the election. In other words, it seems to me that holding the vote after the election benefits Republicans, not Democrats, so from a strategic point of view delaying the vote is stupid.

When the Republicans had control of the House, they would not bring a bill up for a vote if it did not have the support of a majority of the Republican caucus, even if they knew it would eventually pass with bipartisan support if brought before the full House. I would like to see the Dems adopt a similar philosophy. My guess is this CFTA would not have majority support among Democrats. Why should the Democratic leadership put up legislation that will pass with the majority of "yes" votes coming from Republicans? What's the point of controlling the chamber if you do that?

by: dbeach @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 22:26:42 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The better question is (4.00 / 1)

what's the point for us of focusing so much on whether they control the chamber? I'd settle for better Democrats over more if forced to choose. The reason why the Democratic leadership would do that is the simple one - they want it to pass, despite the caucus and their voters.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

by: David Kaib @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 00:11:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If a handful of determined Republicans (0.00 / 0)

can run this country (with help from bad Dems), imagine what a handful of determined Democrats could do. This is why people like me want to vote for Nader, Ron Paul, and Ross Perot. We get sick to death of the one party system and really want to see it destroyed.

by: dkmich @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]