Bush hides from the light to pitch CAFTA

I am anti-CAFTA but the Republicans have the right to have a GOP-only meeting, as do the Democrats, as does any political party.

 

Rush Limbaugh was right back in October 1999 when he said that GWB was "no conservative" and asked, "Who wants a Republican moderate as president?"

Source: National Review

In the same month FreeRepublic.com owner Jim Robinson let us know how he felt about George W. Bush:

"A Bush presidency will be very dangerous for America."

"Bush II is simply another term for Bush I. No thanks. Been there, done that."

"...there aint no way you'll ever convince me that Bush is even one/tenth the statesman or conservative that Reagan was. There is NO comparison."

"Bush scares the bejeebies outta me. Looks like his father got us into this mess and Clinton stepped it up. Now Bush II comes in to finish the job. Guess we'll all be speaking Chinese soon, or not at all."

"Bush II is simply a continuation of the failed Bush I."

Source: FreeRepublic.com

I guess it didn't take much for both Rush and JimRob to do a 180 and sell-out to the GOP establishment!

Blind party loyalty is a dangerous thing!

 

Blind party loyalty is the reason that you need to get out of that Constitution Party but it turns you into an irrational elitist hater of America.

 

I don't hate America, I fight against the two major parties because of my love for America, they are destroying our Constitutional Republic! I am discussing the dangers of CAFTA, that will help destroy America, being pushed by the GOP leadership, and you say that I hate America? Try to stay on topic, it will help your post make much more sense!

If the Constitution Party every strayed from the Constitutional principles it now stands for, I would have no problem leaving that party as well. I don't practice blind party loyalty, but will support any candidate from any party that shows they will protect, defend and follow the US Constitution.

 

The Doubtful Deals Driving CAFTA

What's the connection between a $2.5 billion plan to construct a series of dams and locks along the Mississippi River and a trade agreement between the U.S. and six Central American countries? Answer: It's the price the Bush Administration paid for the vote of Senator Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

In the end, CAFTA passed the Senate 54-45 on June 30 after Bond told the White House he'd be "more comfortable" voting for the trade deal holding a chit for his dams and locks. It headed to the House for what's likely to be a closer -- and more expensive -- vote. With the outcome still in doubt, the capital has become eBay on the Potomac as even some historically pro-trade House Republicans are acting suddenly coy. For legislators, the opportunity is a solid two-fer. "They can go back to their districts and say, 'Look what I got for you,' at the same time they can demonstrate to voters that the President is not a lame duck and Congress isn't paralyzed," says Norman Ornstein, a congressional analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

Signed, Sealed, Undelivered
But if CAFTA becomes law, what will happen to the long list of promised projects that helped to secure its passage? If history is any guide, legislators shouldn't count on collecting. Over the past decade, Administrations of both parties often failed to deliver. Former President Bill Clinton promised lawmakers in 1993 that he would protect Florida tomato farmers and Washington asparagus growers from a feared flood of Mexican imports under NAFTA but did little more than study the situation. And President Bush won support for fast-track negotiating authority in 2002 by pledging to expand trade-related unemployment benefits to include service workers but didn't follow through. Overall, Public Citizen, an advocacy group and CAFTA opponent, says Administrations reneged on 80% of the 90 deals made during the past 12 years to secure votes for trade legislation.

Source: BusinessWeek

 

Please, I am responding to your dig about blind party loyalty is a dangerous thing. What you clearly are saying is that blind party loyalty is not a bad thing in the Constitution Party, an open display of hyprocisy on your part, NetPub, as well as the traditional knife in the back for your opposition. Furthermore, your party has denounced the war against terror as illegal, giving some comfort to Islamofascism as far as I am concerned. Why don't you dump your platform and dump Peroutka except for your own dangerous blind party loyalty, NetPub, huh?

Really, you should accept responsibility for your own words and your forlorn party should stop the constant attack against the member of the two major parties because they don't play the Judas and join with you whenever you insist.

 

It would be blind party loyalty if I disagreed with the Constitution Party's stance against the invasion of Iraq, but still supported them. It is NOT blind party loyalty, because I agree with them.

It is blind party loyalty to do as Rush and JimRob have done and give public reasons why one should not support Bush one day, and turn around and hail him as a conservative leader the next.

The GOP has never stated that they are fighting a war on "Islamofascism", they are simply spending billions of dollars in nation building attempts in the Middle East. The Constitution Party supports defending our nation from "Islamofascism" and terrorist, we just don't support nation building experiments.

I do accept responsibility for my words, and I stand by what I believe, I haven't "flip-flopped" on the issues and the definition of conservativism as many of the GOP cheerleaders have.

 

All you are doing is attacking the two main parties for having robotic followers and that is a standard line with you all the time. Your party platform is shameful and intellectually untenable and merely reveals your indifference to legal and logical persuasion yet you blindly follow that tiny dried up crab apple lawyer who couldn't win a case about the war even if he had the money and the nerve to file a lawsuit. Your party is quixotic but nasty also. You should save your insults for the Republicans for something more specific than just loyalty. I have the idea that cleverness means more than loyalty to you personally anyway.

I really am sick of hearing the CP line about blind party loyalty after 2 or 3 years of it. Bush does not have a majority in the House yet according to the Investors Business Daily so we shall see how the Republican Party debate goes. Mike Pence spoke about it yesterday and Dan Burton is for it. Rush doesn't count no matter what you and A-Pal say, NetPub, because he does not have a vote in Congress.

What your party has demanded on Iraq is withdrawal and compromise as Truman did in Korea and Johnson did in VietNam. Peroutka should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that the American people retreat, compromise, and capitulate from terror.

 

This interuption in the thread was brought to you by church mouse guy, we are now returning to the topic of the thread...

CAFTA: Ideology vs. national interests

Using the Clinton playbook for enacting NAFTA in '93, the White House is twisting arms and buying votes to win passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

And the seductive song the White House is singing sounds familiar. It is the NAFTA theme song. CAFTA will ease the social pressures that have produced waves of illegal aliens. CAFTA will increase U.S. exports. CAFTA will not cost U.S. jobs. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

If Tom DeLay's caucus delivers 200 votes for CAFTA, economic patriots will begin to look outside the GOP for leadership.

In 1993, Republicans, by four to one, signed on to NAFTA. They believed the promises that our $5 billion trade surplus with Mexico would grow and illegal immigration would diminish. They were deceived. The NAFTA skeptics were proven right. The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico vanished overnight. Last year, we ran a $50 billion trade deficit. Since 1993, 15 million illegal aliens have been caught breaking into the United States. Five million made it, and their soaring demands for social services have driven California to bankruptcy. As for Mexico's major exports to us, they appear to be two: narcotics and Mexicans.

With Middle Easterners turning up on the Rio Grande, patriotic Minutemen are patrolling the border because President Bush will not enforce our immigration laws. Who can believe this White House is serious, then, about halting the invasion from the Caribbean and Central America?

It is time for Republicans who represent a Middle America that never wanted NAFTA to tell the White House the old talking points will no longer do. The open-borders, free-trade ideology of Clinton and Bush has run its course and begun to endanger our national existence.

Source: WorldNetDaily

 

Blind party loyalty is a dangerous thing!

This interuption in the thread was brought to you by church mouse guy, we are now returning to the topic of the thread...

NetPub, your party is anti-intellectual and likes to accuse others. When you are duck hunting, NetPub, a hit bird flutters.

 

Again, you are not making much sense, this thread is about the dangers of CAFTA, not about how much church mouse guy hates the Constitution Party.

NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA are dangerous and should not be supported and promoted by an administration claiming to be conservative! Anyone who doesn't support CAFTA, but is still supporting these "conservative" candidates in their push to destroy America through CAFTA is practicing "blind party loyalty".

 

I am in general in favor of free-trade. It's true that cutting government protection of certain industries does make things difficult for the people in those industries. I'd like to be completely non-socialist, but I think there has to be some government intervention going on in the process of weaning these business sectors off of the favoritism they've enjoyed. Perhaps funding for job training and education could be extended.

 

House vote on CAFTA likely to be close

In a rare piece of lobbying on Capitol Hill, President Bush appealed personally to fellow Republicans Wednesday to close ranks behind a free trade agreement with Central America that faces a very close floor vote.

The House was beginning debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement later in the day, with a vote coming as early as Wednesday night.

With Democrats strongly against it, passage depends on keeping Republican defections to a minimum.

The president reminded Republicans that while some might oppose CAFTA for parochial interests "we are here not only to represent our districts but to represent the nation," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said after the meeting that lasted more than an hour.

DeLay predicted a tough vote, but "we will pass CAFTA tonight."

DeLay said the president may have won over one unidentified Republican when he noted that Central American countries have contributed troops in the war against terrorism.

Bush, who has invested considerable time and effort to winning approval of CAFTA, was accompanied by Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman at the closed meeting of House Republicans. It isn't unusual for presidents to press their agendas with members of their own party or the opposition party, but they usually do it at the White House.

Source: CNN

Bush is showing us where his priorities are. He can campaign, twist arms and make special visits to Capitol Hill in an effort to further destroy our Constitutional Republic with CAFTA, but he does nothing about the 4,000+ babies being killed daily in America!

 

Yes, even the black congressional caucus had meetings and excluded black Republicans.

 

The issue passed I guess. Party meetings are as old as the republic. Dan Burton, GOP from Indiana, was a house leader in the passage. Hoosier farmers hope to make small sales into Central America thanks to this bill. The whole bill was very modest.