CAFTA was not a party issue, but an ideological issue.

[ulysses]

"Republicans", per se, did not support or pass CAFTA. Corporatists of both parties did.

Discuss.

edit thanks to bryant69

[jojo54]

1. Yeah, 42 that make up the DLC. n/t

[Cocoa]

2. Cafta is republican

the dems are clearly against Cafta.

[ulysses]

4. these Dems aren't against CAFTA at all.

http://www.dlc.org/

[Cocoa]

7. but 95% of the house DLC voted against Cafta

what you are saying was more true ten years ago, under Clinton.

Things are changing for the better within the dem party, along the lines of what you're talking about.

[ulysses]

9. I'll give you that much.

Things were much better this time round. Still.

[papau]

3. 20 billion trade in 11 trillion US economy is not big deal - I agree

it is an ideological issue - esp since labor and environmental safeguards are missing.

[bryant69]

5. I'd agree

Although it might be more clear to say Corporatists of both parties supported it. People who put the needs of the Corporations ahead the needs of the people.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ulysses]

6. absolutely correct.

Much more accurate. I'll change the op - thanks.

[Catholic Sensation]

8. They probably prefer some bullshit pseudonym like "Pro Business"

instead of "conservative" as it pertains to the Democrats who supported this shit. The humanitarian costs of the countries who are essentially the victims of this globalization of America are much greater than whatever profit a company like Wal-Mart or General Motors will see from reduced labor costs and cheaper capital brought in. Friends of mine who went to Mexico and places like that say NAFTA has made things worse for the average worker, this certainly won't fuckin help...

[earth mom]

10. The average person gets the shaft again.

Now there is not doubt in my mind that corporations have taken over Congress.

Will the voices of the majority of the people of this country continue to not be heard and instead grow dimmer and dimmer until completely silenced?!

It's a very sad day today... :cry:

[Armstead]

11. It's not even an ideological issue

It's an issue of basic common sense on many levels.

In addition to progressive Democratic opponents, ultra libertarians like Ron Paul voted for it because it takes away national sovergnty; conservative southernern Republicans like the reps from North Carolina voted against it because it is screwing their constituents.

These mega-trade agreements just don't make sense to anyone except peope who have been bought by corporate America or who can't think beyond the end of their noses.

[ulysses]

12. fair point, my friend.

Still, I think the corporatism angle helps in understanding what's happening, particularly with the pharma lobby.

[Armstead]

13. I agree totally that corporatism is the problem

But I'm saying that opposition to consolidation of corporate power is bigger than "liberal" or "progressive" or "conservative" or "libertarian" philosophies.

Opposition to it is basic common sense for many reasons. That's in important point IMO because it 1)Takes the "right" and "left" dichotomy out of it and 2)Makes it possible for people who disagree on otehr things to at least work together on that issue.

In other words, (IMO of course) it's important to seperate the basic issue of corporate power from ideologival labels because coalitions of very strange bedfellows is the only way to challenge it effectively in the long run.

[ulysses]

14. money's overriding common sense though, isn't it?

coalitions of very strange bedfellows is the only way to challenge it effectively in the long run.

Very true. Those will be difficult to create and maintain, but necessary.

[Armstead]

15. Money always overrides common sense

But hopefully at some point it will become clear both to grass roots conservatives and Kool Aid drinking Democratic "centrists" that funelling their own money up to the wealthy and powerful is against their own interests.