MyDD :: CAFTA Aftermath

CAFTA Aftermath

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 06:30:18 PM EST

Yeah, I'm pissed off.

A disgusting development on the CAFTA vote is that it appears the vote was actually 217-217, which would have resulted in its defeat. However, apparently, the clerk did not record one or two of the "no" votes, thus stealing passage of the legislation. If we can prove this, it is is 100% grounds of impeachment for both Hastert and DeLay, even aside from DeLay's other ethical troubles. Fixing a vote in the House is without question a high crime against the Constitution. Of course, if this isn't true, then Charles Taylor is lying, lying, lying.

Update: OK, apparently Jo Ann Davis really wasn't there, maing the final 217-216 vote tally accurate, as she was stuck in traffic coming from a memorial service. That just puts more blame on the 15 sell-outs.

Of course, if the fifteen Democrats hadn't defected, such theft would not have been possible. In response to these defections, it looks like Pelosi is finally going to take out the trash

Roll Call has a new report up about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) holding an emergency meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee tonight to discuss formal sanctions against the 15 Democrats who sold out their party and voted for the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Pelosi raised "the likelihood that defectors' committee assignments would be reviewed at tonight's meeting of the Steering Committee." That's absolutely necessary - why should Democrats who undermine their party be given plum committee assignments over other, far more loyal and principled Democrats? Pelosi should be commended for her courage - and now she needs to back up her words with action.

The story goes on to note that "Several Democratic sources said Pelosi and other House leaders are particularly upset with New York Reps. Greg Meeks and Ed Towns, members of exclusive committees with safe seats, who voted for CAFTA."

Meeks had the nerve to say that he "voted my conscience" on CAFTA, despite his long history selling off his votes on trade to the highest corporate bidder.

Good for Pelosi. I can only imagine that this will result in more whining from the sell-outs:

The need for such healing became clear after a blow-up in last week's whip meeting over a vote on bankruptcy legislation. Accusations flew and tensions flared at the session when Pelosi sided with liberal Members angry over Democratic defections, and Hoyer defended the moderates who supported the measure [...]

The bankruptcy split underscored a larger divide over the competing interests of liberals and centrists in the Caucus. Moderate Members have long felt slighted by the progressive wing of the party, and their recent successes on the campaign trail have emboldened them to flex their muscle within the Caucus.

Recent successes on the campaign trail? Are they referring to these?

For example, look at Democratic candidates for Senate in 2004 that came from the House: Bard Carson (Oklahoma), Chris John (Louisiana), Joe Hoeffel (Pennsylvania), and Denise Majette (Georgia). All four of these candidates were members of the House New Democratic Coalition during their time in Congress, and none of them were members of the Progressive caucus.

Maybe I need to be reminded which of these candidates came within ten points. As for the New Democrats, they picked up one seat outside of special elections, Brian Higgins in the NY-27, where Bush won only 41.1% of the vote in 2000, making it the second least Republican seat held by a Republican in the nation (only CT-02 is more Democratic). Besides all that, someone needs to remind me how going from 205 seats in December, 2003 to 202 seats in July, 2005, with all of the net losses coming from Blue Dogs and New Democrats, can somehow be defined as success on the campaign trail.

CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill are not good for the nation. If one of the two major political parties does not oppose things like CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill, then no one will be able to stop them. These fifteen Democrats thus nearly removed any protection the country has from these odious pieces of legislation. Pelosi has every justification to enact some very serious sanctions against these members, including stripping them of their committee seats. You can urge Pelosi to take action here.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 86 Comments :: Post a Comment

CAFTA (3.00 / 1)

I was just wondering what the major objections to CAFTA are. Not that I support it I just want to know what the major objections are. All I know is that it seriously hurts labor here in the US which really sucks.

by Democrat12222 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 06:40:28 PM EST

Re: CAFTA (3.00 / 1)

It gets thousands of mediocra manufacturing jobs replaced by much better paying service jobs. Boo hoo.

Seriously, I am a free trade supporter, can someone please give me a cogent argument against free trade?

by knuckle50 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CAFTA (3.00 / 1)

"It gets thousands of mediocra manufacturing jobs replaced by much better paying service jobs. Boo hoo."

With an amazing argument like that, I surrender.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CAFTA (3.00 / 2)

Service economy depends on manufacturing and agriculture. In order to have those alleged high paying service jobs, you need to produce something. Most service jobs are disguised welfare paid for (in the past, we DON'T pay for it anymore) by the surplus from manufacturing and agriculture.
The other side of the coin is that workers in these countries are not free. Were the gains from trade to end up in their pockets, giving them a chance to purchase our high-cost goods and services, it wouldn't be so bad. Without a just social contract, there won't be a strong middle class in Central America, and China.
Our elites colluding with their elites to the detriment of the common man is not free trade. A true free trade agreement would fit on a post card and could be mailed to every man, woman, and child in the New World for the cost of one day's operations in Iraq.

Can you return the favor? Can you charatcterize these "high paying service jobs" you mention? I'm talking about specifics: employer, education requirement, and salary structure.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

free trade and cafta (none / 0)

I think that there are plenty of free-trade supporters that were against CAFTA. As with many issues--it's not the concept, but the details that make a differnce.

First, there is concern about CAFTA's impact on U.S. jobs. If "free trade" leads to an increase in imports that is greater than exports, then we end up costing the U.S. economy. Reasonable people argue this point regarding CAFTA, but the similar NAFTA legislation led to more imports than exports, which raises concerns CAFTA.

Second, there is legitimate concern that CAFTA would weaken labor laws in the Central American countries. Unbelievable that we would want to open trade at the same time that we weaken enforcement of labor conditions.

by Steve Hill on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Reasonable" people cannot disagree (3.00 / 1)

It's simple equilibrium.

If you remove barriers between two areas with distinct levels of wages, the wages of the higher will come down, and the wages of the lower will rise (assuming they are in a just society).

Even if the sum of the wages of both countries is higher after than before, there is no guarantee that each country will experience higher wages. It is a near certainty that the country with higher wages will see a drop in wages. Central America is but one piece of the overall puzzle which pits the wealthy American worker versus his poor counter parts in the rest of the word. CAFTA is part of a race to the bottom. We ought to have a system that lets everyone else catch up, while America retains it middle class.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 08:45:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ron Paul voted against it (none / 0)

And since he's (really) a Libertarian, and Libertarians are usually pro-free trade, I suspect there was some corporate pork or something else bad in the treaty.

by Geotpf on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

217-216 (none / 0)

I thought it was just one vote which should have been a no but was recorded as an abstention. Wouldn't it still have passed?

www.RussForPresident.com

by peacenik23 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 06:43:59 PM EST

Yes, but... (3.00 / 1)

But the thing is, the disputed vote was not recorded as an abstention. It was recorded as no vote at all (different from abstaining).

But there were two people not voting-the other being Jo Ann Davis. If they both actually voted no, then the vote would have been 217-217 (one seat vacant, the OH-02 seat). But if she actually didn't vote, it still would have passed 217-216.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

by Geotpf on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 06:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It appears confirmed that... (3.00 / 1)

...Jo Ann Davis wasn't there. She was stuck in traffic heading back from the aborted memorial service for the Boy Scouts that were electrocuted, and didn't make it back until about a half an hour after the vote took place. So it looks like the proper vote tally is 217-216.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801336.html

by Geotpf on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's about time (3.00 / 1)

I fully support Pelosi. Until Dems learn the meaning of the phrase "party unity," we just are not going to get anywhere.

by cscs on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 06:51:31 PM EST

Re: It's about time (3.00 / 1)

Remember that "party unity" in 2008 when the nominee is selected. If it's Hillary, she'll be expecting your support.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:58:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's about time (none / 0)

Good point. Let's see if there is a party unity when Hillary is nominated.

by dtlc on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's about time (none / 0)

Well, that was really a shitty comment, wasn't it?

by cscs on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 02:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's about time (none / 0)

It isn't principled to selectively abide by something only when it's convenient. You either believe in party unity or you don't.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 03:15:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's about time (none / 0)

You're basically calling me unloyal to my party. You're assuming I won't support the Dem candidate in 08.

Get off your high fucking horse, dude.

by cscs on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 07:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's about time (none / 0)

Tsk, tsk. Such language, dude!

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 07:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's about time (none / 0)

By my count we have about 170 Democrats in the House we can count on to have meaningful integrity. I don't mean they stick to the leadership's position, it's that when they vote they consistently have reasonable and respectable rationales.

I have nothing kind to say about the other ~35, for the most part coidentified with the Blue Dog or DLC caucuses. Only half of them defected on CAFTA, but I'm willing to believe they all flipped coins or drew straws.

I guesstimate that we get around a 10 seat improvement in the first category of House Democrats every election cycle. That's the good news to me. The bad news is that at this rate of improvement it will be 2016 before we have a solid and respectable House majority. We'll have a majority long before that but it will predictably it will be hostage to this caucus o' crap bunch for a few terms.

by killjoy on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep in mind... (3.00 / 1)

...the Democrats held thier party together much better than the Republicans did on this particular vote (there were nearly twice as many Republican defections than Democrat defections). If they hadn't, the vote wouldn't have even be close.

by Geotpf on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems are saving DeLay's ass! (3.00 / 1)

DeLay has a majority of 30 or so: he should be able to pass bills like CAFTA and the energy bill.

If he was getting a full turnout, it would be no skin off anyone's nose if a bunch of Blue Dogs increased the margin, to prettify their scorecards with right-wing groups.

But, with CAFTA and the energy bill conference report votes, that's not what's happened. The winning margin has been supplied by Dems.

So either DeLay has been able to let some off his dogs off the leash under catch and release - which would be bad enough for the Dems.

Or his discipline has slipped such that those GOP members voting against him are real defections - and the Dem votes are keeping his nuts out of the blender.

by johnsmith0903 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:14:59 PM EST

Re: Dems are saving DeLay's ass! (none / 0)

I watched the whole vote until the very end. Waited for those last two votes for a while. Then a woman came rushing in to La Hood (Rep from IL.) and he jumped up and banged down the gavel. I thought it looked funny. I was thinking they ended the vote before it could be tied. But if what you say is true, CAFTA won by ONE VOTE. Then consider this: that vote was cast by Rep. Jerry "Wily" Weller (IL 11th) who recently married Guatemala congresswoman and FRG THUG, Zury Rios Montt. Check out the details and the letter to the House Ethics Committee Kankakee Voices sent about this flagrant conflict of interest:
www.kankakeevoices2.blogspot.com
We and local newspapers had been asking that Weller abstain from the vote like he promised during his re-election campaign last year, and step down from his seat on the International Relations Committee - Western Hemisphere.

by Kankakee Voice on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 10:35:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude, how many times? (none / 0)

I'm sure you're very proud of your work and all, but how many times do you feel the need to post the same comment on the same thread?

I'm feeling like you're about to sell me an abdominal machine of some sort here!

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Smaller = more disciplined = winning (2.33 / 3)

This is a huge test of Pelosi's leadership. She needs to show that she can crack the whip and send these people packing. This isn't like gay marriage, CAFTA is serious business that actually means something.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:18:44 PM EST

Re: Smaller = more disciplined = winning (none / 0)

Gay marriage means something to gay people and their families. Equal rights are serious business.

by edgeplot on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gay marriage (3.00 / 1)

You do not need a state imprimatur to be married. The benefits like health care etc. are significant, but that is not what people reject about gay marriage. They resent the redefinition of an illusion. Civil unions, or better yet, the abolition of all marriage benefits would be a better way of evening out the playing field. Gay marriage is not, nor has it ever been, an issue that touches the lives of most people. If gay marriage is more important to you than

peace
the environment
the middle class

then by all means, continue handing the keys of power to the republicans, because that is exactly what is done by pushing gay marriage onto an antagonistic populace.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 08:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gay marriage (none / 0)

There is no reason to disregard equal rights in the pursuit of peace and progressive handling of the middle class and the environemnt. It's telling that even in a progressive blog discussion like this your comment slam on equal rights for gay people has gone largely unnoticed and unchallenged. If you had written "This isn't like equal rights for minorities, [it's] serious business" or "This isn't like religious freedom for all, [it's] serious business" people might react more, but apparently even amongst progressives it's acceptable to regard gay rights as less worthy than other groups with regards to equal treatment. Yes, CAFTA is a huge issue and with massive largely negative implications for North American, but a discussion of it does not need to include the disparaging of other progressive causes. And your statement that "gay marriage is not ... an issue that touches the lives of most people" is entirely false: the inequitable treatment of any minority harms society as a whole, and thereby affects all people negatively.

by edgeplot on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 07:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope she's on record with the Caucus. (3.00 / 1)

If she didn't establish beforehand that this was going to be a leadership vote, she's gonna have trouble if she starts to mete out punishment.

And if she was, why didn't we hear about it sooner? With just 15 defections, and on a vote she wants to start kicking butts about, nobody had a whip count?

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:39:22 PM EST

Not if the People are behind her. (3.00 / 1)

Remember, the people are the true arbiter and source of power in America.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not if the People are behind her. (3.00 / 1)

Remember, the people are the true arbiter and source of power in America.

Not in the House Democratic Caucus, they're not. The one and only arbiter and source of power in the Caucus is the very members she's asking to give her the power to punish, possibly ex post facto, as traitors.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (3.00 / 1)

and if they fight back and don't accept their dicipline, who is the ultiamte arbiter? Thank you.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (3.00 / 1)

OK. So why not then just do nothing, and wait for the ultimate arbiters to take care of business?

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why wait? (none / 0)

She should kick ass first, and take names later.

Bottom line... they fucked up. Whether she warned them beforehand or not doesn't matter. Look, they knew what they were doing when they sold out.

Possibly they didn;t know it would be this close. But if you were looking to split hairs, then you suck anyway.

I personally hope to see each of these losers contested in a bitter primary run on CAFTA specifically.

The vote is on record, and in those races I'll be making my contributions in the primary season.

Since Dean lost in the 2004 primaries, I've felt so frustrated with the poll-sniffing DLC-type Dems. I've tried voting for them in 2000 and 2004 (after they ran my REAL party leader out!), and they just suck too much to win.

I may not have a lot of money to throw around, but I'm throwing what I have in the things I see as important (right now, its Hackett and the SD runoff).

What's more, I actively engage Dems I know to do the same. Some are receptive, some aren't. But I'm working hard in my little sphere here in OK to change the people I know. I know others are doing the same nationwide.

This shit WILL stop. Damn these fools! If you voted for CAFTA, you are in the croshairs. Retroactively, with no advance notice. You should have known better, since that's your fuckin' job!

Go Peolsi... make these dirty fucks PAY!

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just flat out disagree. (3.00 / 2)

Whether she warned them beforehand or not doesn't matter.

To you. And that's very easy to say from the sidelines. But ask Congressional Democrats whether it matters, and you'll get a different answer. The Caucus and the Caucus Leadership are their instruments, not ours. And while it's basic civics that we all have reason to expect our Representatives to serve our interests as voters, the Caucus, which would mete out the punishment, is a different animal.

You correctly recognize the recourse you have. Take it. Campaign contributions and primary challenges are where you have a voice. But not in the Caucus.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well of course I don't have a caucus vote (none / 0)

I love in OKlahoma, so I don;t even have a proxy Caucus vote.

But i belive that the original comment was about what Pelosi and the Caucus should do. About that I just have an opinion, and a voice.

So I wrote an email, and I'll be making a call. But let's not forget... supposedly this was an action already in the works. We here don't need to do anything but state our support and avenge ourselves as best we can in '06.

But a statement of support is something we can do now. Hopefully DC Dems are ready to accept input from the national base.

Why do you think it so important to make a point that she should do nothing? I mean, how does that help push some kind of Democratic agenda? I'm sure the House Dems might think its harsh. My 3-year-old thinks its harsh when he gets put in his place. Sometime when you fuck up, you get your ass whooped. Sometimes hindsight is 20/20.

Personally I'd be pissed if she did nothing, if I were in the House. Because this vote was a win for W that he got by Democratic votes. It was wrong for the country, and it was wrong for the Party (and the Caucus). Because of this vote, Dems lost an oportunity to gain a little clout in the House, where the minority is pretty much a whoopin'boy. I'd be PISSED that some jack-offs pissed that away. So I think Pelosi will get some props for crackin' the whip on the 15 or so bitches who went the other way.

Even in the Caucus.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well of course I don't have a caucus vote (3.00 / 2)

To the extent that you think the point I was making was that she should do nothing, I'd like to set the record straight. I do think she should do something. I think she should make her policy clear, going forward, and hold people to it. And if she failed to make herself clear ahead of time on this one, she should kick herself and get on the ball for next time.

And to the extent that it was wrong for the country, the Party and the Caucus, we should be pissed with her for not making her policy (if such it is) known ahead of time so that the path to punishment would be clear, here and now, and not some time in the future, on a vote that we should be able to prevail on, but instead will have to regard as a test of our "new" policy.

She certainly should crack the whip, and I'll be right behind her when she does. But if she's doing it now to cover her ass for having failed to draw the line in the sand clearly enough prior to this vote, I'm not all that interested in backing her up.

The bottom line, to me, is that the stronger your feeling that this was a crucial vote that defined the Party, the less forgiving you should be of leaders who gave anything less than their full attention to delivering that message when it could have helped.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know what? (none / 0)

You're right.

To be honest, I can see your point.

Now, that being said I'm a spiteful prick, and in my heart of hearts I want to see them pay. I would like to see them lose their nice stuff (if they had awesome committee seats; I don't pretend to know what they have and whether it's highly-valued).

But I concede your point. This WAS a leadership failure, and I was giving Pelosi a pass in my own mind.

Which brings me to my next tangent... is there any chance, ANY CHANCE WHATSOEVER, of Pelosi getting sacked and Denny K rising to assume the Leader role?????

Because that would ROCK!

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mark your calendar! (3.00 / 1)

Here's a rare day, indeed!

I appreciate your being honest enough to concede the point.

Unfortunately, the down note I have to end on is that I don't think there's any chance at all that a lashing-out by Pelosi would result in a Caucus revolt that would end with Dennis Kucinich in her place.

Handing out punishments without an honest accounting for the policy would likely cause resentment, and the extent of that resentment would depend on the punishment and the truculence with which it was delivered. But while I can imagine a blunder being made that's so grave that it disaffects enough Democrats and moves them to consider throwing their support behind another leader, there's no indication the Kucinich is either interested in the job, or likely to be the beneficiary of changing allegiances. Remember that many of the 15 who would be punished are considerably more conservative than most Kucinich supporters. Those who rise to their defense are more likely to be conservative as well.

There would undoubtedly be some solidly progressive voices who would object not to the concept of discipline, but to the methods employed, and they may be inclined toward Kucinich, but again, I don't know that he's ever expressed any interest in the job, and this is a position you work hard and campaign hard for, over the course of many, many years. It's not something you get elevated to by dint of merit.

To be blunt, the position is bought. There are almost always any number of Democrats who can be considered leading lights in the House. (Whether they're considered leaders by actual Americans is a different story entirely.) But choosing among them, for House Democrats, is usually a matter of weighing the extent to which they've helped get others elected. That is to say, how much campaign money they've steered to them.

Members with excess cash tend to sock it away in "leadership PACs," a term you've doubtless heard. Well, leadership PACs are usually thought to have been given that name because they're PACs associated with those who are in leadership. But the reality is that at the time they're established, they're established with an eye toward getting someone into leadership.

What you do with them, of course, is you direct your big donor who have maxed out in donations to your own campaign to make additional contributions to your leadership PAC. Then, you pass out the money you collect there to other House Democrats who are having money troubles, and to Democratic challengers looking to get elected for the first time. The understanding is that when you're ready to run for a leadership post, the people you gave money to will be there to vote for you, in exchange for your help.

Big donors win, because they get to give even more money to their favorite Democrats (and we all know what baggage comes with that.) Plus, if it works out, the Democrat now even more beholden to them is in a leadership post, which is just an added bonus.

Leadership aspirants win, because they have a way (money) of differentiating themselves from other candidates for the same post.

More junior Members and backbenchers win, because they get money out of the deal, and they get a preview of which of the leadership aspirants is the most adept at raising much-needed campaign funds.

The trade-off, of course, is that the ability to raise money is not always (though it can sometimes be) a good proxy for the things you and I would tend to think of as being actual leadership abilities -- core values, the ability to articulate them clearly, willingness to fight, etc.

The upshot is that the most likely successor (should the need arise) to Pelosi will be the one who has raised and passed out the most money to fellow Members and successful Democratic challengers. And that would probably not be Kucinich or anyone allied with him.

by Kagro X on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 07:51:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll still keep the dream alive! (none / 0)

I was very impressed with Kucinich in the primary campaign. While I didn't know the details you just outlined w/ respect to attaining the Dear Leader position (thanks), I did realize that my man Dennis has zero chance of being the next Leader.

My crude understanding was that he was just too damn good to actually wield that kind of power w/o being run out of town by the corporate sector (which is probably a decent approximation of your model!).

Nevertheless... I dream of the day when my party is as prinicpled, progressive, and passionate and Denny K.

Thanks for the civics lesson, BTW

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 08:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll still keep the dream alive! (3.00 / 1)

Well, I should hope you would keep your dream alive. It was never my intention to extinguish it! Rather, I like to share what little I know about internal Caucus politics so that everyone has a better shot at understanding how to create change, at least within the current system.

The downside of how leadership positions are filled is that it's all based on money. The upside, however, is that your money is just as green as anyone else's. Which means that, in theory, leadership positions are as open to Dennis Kucinich as to anyone else, provided he has the message to deliver the money.

It also means that grass-roots Democrats really can have a voice in the Caucus, if they want to have it. Generously funding a leadership PAC for a willing fellow traveler is not beyond the means of the rank-and-file. But that voice will be heard through the filter of money, not by e-mailing House Members and demanding certain actions inside the Caucus.

So while that will likely turn off a lot of activists, that's where it stands now. It's not the preferred method, to be sure. But it's a method with no particular barriers to entry. And that's why I put it out there. In case someone wants to take it up, rather than just yell about votes and/or discipline after the fact.

by Kagro X on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 10:14:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because I AM the arbiter! (3.00 / 2)

This jabberjawing you and I are participating is the grassroots movement of a mighty leviathan called the people.

Of course, if I and others "sit around and do nothing" then that is also a form of popular arbitration, though a vile, dishonorable one.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because I AM the arbiter! (3.00 / 1)

This is all very inspiring as jingoism goes, but it might just be the least informed commentary on internal Caucus politics I've ever seen.

That's without even mentioning that you've completely misunderstood the point of the "do nothing" comment, which was that if you want to be the arbiter, you'll have to wait your chance, which means you might as well sit and wait, because that chance isn't until 2006.

But you want the Caucus, a body comprised of and responsible only to Democratic Members of the House, to do the work for you, ahead of time. That's fine, and you can try to move them to hear you, but don't hold your breath. Ultimate arbiters have their day, and their reach rarely, if ever, extends to interal Caucus machinations. That's their turf.

So, again, if you'd like to bring it to this tribunal of the "ultimate arbiters," you're invited, even encouraged, to do so. But no amount of speechifying is going to change the date of judgment day. You're going to have to bide your time.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course, in stating your position, you've done exactly the opposite of rejecting my line of reasoning. You've accepted it entirely.

But, then, you had to.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Steny? (3.00 / 1)

What does it take to get Steny booted from a committee seat? He's probably at the center of the problem.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:50:35 PM EST

Re: What about Steny? (3.00 / 1)

Steny voted no. One good way to end Pelosi's disciplinary spate (and her run as Leader) would be to try to punish people who voted with her this time, because they voted against her in the past.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't know anything about Steney... (none / 0)

... but I don't ever think that cowering in fear of the people that you should be leading is necessarily a good idea, ever.

Respect your constituency, yes. But obviously Pelosi has to crack the whip on these dudes.

Of course, if you voted yes, then there's nothing to crack the whip about. Don't know who he is... but if he's regularly crossingthe line on stupid shit, then he deserves to get gunned down with some 'friendly fire.'

Each and every Dem will have to decide which issues and items are deal-breakers. For me, CAFTA and the bankruptcy act are just repugnant. But, while I am royally pissed about the Schiavo thing, and I see all the Congressional Dems who didn't speak out as cowards and bitches, I obviously can't reject the vast number of Dems who didn't do the right thing. Sucky but true.

Back to CAFTA... we'll be a stronger party w/o these guys. This was such a big deal, and we were so close... you deserve to get a little smack in the head when you fuck up like that.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't know anything about Steney... (3.00 / 1)

You don't cower in fear. Agreed.

Which is why there should have been a clear and unequivocal warning ahead of time.

Everyone knew it was coming. Everyone knew there'd be defections. Everyone knew it would be close. Everyone knew there would be calls for discipline.

So, why no warning?

Because someone was either cowering or not paying attention. And now they're scrambling for an explanation.

by Kagro X on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:28:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tht'a true for sure. (none / 0)

It has been obvious that this was gonna be close for a bit now. There definately SHOULD have been a round-up a'forhand. On that, I agree.

I just don't think that disqualifies action on Pelosi's part. If she didn't round up, she fucked up (and I don't know one way or another); that doesn't mean she shouldn't do what she can to give Dems a wake-up call.

The House is rough-and-tumble, and everyone knows that all too well by now. Sometimes you learn the hard way. I hope this is one of those times for those who voted our opportunity away. I know this is a hard lesson for Pelosi, who had the party's destiny in her hands and dropped the ball. But she still has a duty to do, and right now that duty is, to me, to kick some ass and use the authority she has. If the Caucu rebels, so be it... we'll have a new leader.

Hopefully Denny K.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Party Discipline (none / 0)

Voters like their Congressperson to vote their district and their conscience, but frequently aren't that concerned about voting with the majority of their party. Depends on the issue. However, when Republicans try to enforce party discipline, there are a posts here about strong arm tactics and a lack of respect for individual members of Congress, so there's a bit of hypocrisy in calling for similar tactics from House Democrats. Furthermore, it's a dangerous tactic, either because it endangers some of the 15 seats (which may not be the case for most) or because it creates the perception that Democrats are virulently anti-free trade and intolerant of their own members. Booting a few folks off committees may feel good today, but I don't think it helps the party long-term.

by SLinVA on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:44:14 PM EST

Show me (3.00 / 1)

"However, when Republicans try to enforce party discipline, there are a posts here about strong arm tactics and a lack of respect for individual members of Congress, so there's a bit of hypocrisy in calling for similar tactics from House Democrats."

Show me. Show me one. I dare you. i double dog dare you.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To help you out... (3.00 / 1)

Here's a link to my entire history here at MyDD:

http://chris-bowers.mydd.com/user/chris%20bowers/stories

Here's links to my comemntary on party discipline:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/28/152434/381
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/30/132626/843
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/2/15/163859/768

If you are going to call me a hypocrite to my face, at least provide an example.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To help you out... (3.00 / 1)

I think there have been more than a few comments here (& at Kos) about the tactics used by Delay & Hassert to hold their troops in line, perhaps not by the author but certainly by others. Is it being suggested that the House GOP leadership doesn't deserve some criticism on that score?

by SLinVA on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:20:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To help you out... (none / 0)

What, now I speak for the 60,000+ registered users here and at Dailykos (and who knows what other blogs)? That's insane. My position on caucus dscipline is made perfectly clear int he posts I linked. IF you are going to call me a hypocrite, don't point out that other people on Kos and MyDD have contradicted my opinion. Of course they have. I'm not them.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To help you out... (3.00 / 1)

Let's be clear, you weren't called a hypocrite, it was merely noted that there is some tension between calling for party discipline against Democratic House members who vote "wrong" when many here have blanched at the heavy-handed enforcement tactics of the House GOP. It would be arguably hypocritical of those who condemned the GOP tactics to endorse disciplining the CAFTA 15.

by SLinVA on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You weren't talking hypotheticals before (none / 0)

So now you are arguing that becuase some people here have argued that such Republican tactics are bad, and some people here have argued that Demcorats should use similar tactics, that the entire place is therefore a little hypocritical? Anyone with even the slightest analytical ability can see that such a conclusion cannot be drawn.

People on these boards do not always agree on everything. You refer to MyDD and Dailykos as though they are some sort of singular entity, and thus can be considered a little hypocritical because we have disagreemt on this issue. And yes, you did say that there was hypocrosy going on, and not just in a potential, hypothetical sense: "However, when Republicans try to enforce party discipline, there are a posts here about strong arm tactics and a lack of respect for individual members of Congress, so there's a bit of hypocrisy in calling for similar tactics from House Democrats." That isn't hypothetical--you are saying that there is hypocrosy in calling for similar tactics.

Its one thing to claim that hypocrosy was taking place. Its even worse to then claim that you were just positing some sort of hypothetical hypocrosy, and not actually calling anyone hypocritical. And even if you were just pointing out that if someone, in theory, were to decry that Republicans use strong arm tactics and also, in theory, were to support Democrats using strong arm tactics, then what sort of brilliant insight would that be? I suppose it would be about as equally insightful if someone were to point out that if someone had been posting nothing but oppositional comments on a blog for eight months, that such a person was probably opposed to the purpose of that blog and trying to undermine it. Remember, however, I'm not saying anyone is doing that, as this entire discussion is hypothetical.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

another way to look at it (3.00 / 2)

Sadly, Jim Madison failed when he sought to "multiply faction" in the Constitution. The way he set it up guaranteed two-competing parties, and it guaranteed sectional rivalries. "Big Deal" you say? Well, those sectional rivalries already lead to one bloody civil war (North vs. South) and are threatening to do the same (Blue vs. Red).

OK. So we have a two-party system that is trying to accomodate all the various factions in American politics. What I think my man C.B. is saying, and what I KNOW I'm saying is that the Democratic party needs to consolidate its ranks that are really a remnant of a 70+ year old New Deal coalition, rebrand itself along clear, understandable, and above all defensible lines, so that the right-wing doesn't go unchallenged and end up dragging our country, and by extension our world, to perilous and unstable extremes.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another way to look at it (3.00 / 2)

The Democratic Party needs to have discipline not only in the congress but also at the grassroots. It needs to have a clear message that it is for the middle class. It for a socially and economically mobile society. It is not for the rich corporate lobbyist who are robbing the country blind and giving it all away.

Mydd has advocated taking a page from the Republicans in terms of party discipline for a long time. I believe that in order to successfully block the policies of the Republicans it needs to do the following: tell the national party to open itself up to pro-life and anti-gay marriage Democrats and Independents, and at the same time, silence the knee jerk left. All the Democrats and Independents who don't like the Republicans will come back to the Democratic Party in the event that this ever takes place and the Democrats will win.

Can the Democrats ever do this?

by Christopher Hitchens on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another way to look at it (3.00 / 1)

Pro-choicers are already pro-life because the latter IS a choice. Pro-choice is a libertarian position and consistently polls well with the majority of Americans. Pro-lifers are in the minority, therefore the dems are on the winning side of that issue.

As for gay rights, I don't think dems should take the bait or at least counter it with stem cell research. Why do I have to be pro-gay or anti-gay? Why can't I be agnostic-gay?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another way to look at it (3.00 / 0)

That may be, but pro-lifers are more likely to vote on the issue.

Pro-choice Republicans still vote Republican. Pro-life Democrats have been leaving the party for quite some time.

This is probably because pro-choice is the "default" position. If you don't give a damn one way or another about abortion, you will probably be pro-choice.

As for the agnostic-gay, I think that is the way to go. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business. Period.

by wayward on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 10:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another way to look at it (none / 0)

With a few exceptions, mostly in the South, "blue" vs. "red" is really "urban" vs. "rural".

Even if the division really is fairly even, the constitution gives the rural "red" areas a considerable political advantage over the urban "blue" areas. This is especially true in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In other words, it doesn't matter how many votes Barbara Boxer or Chuck Schumer can get if we can't compete in those big empty states full of prarie. Even if the Democrats can pull ahead by winning in urban areas, if they can't comeback in rural and suburban areas, they will be destined for permanent minority status in the US Senate.

by wayward on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 10:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

political fallout from CAFTA vote (3.00 / 1)

Keep an eye on the NC 8th, where incumbent (R) Robin Hayes apparently caved in to last minute corporate bribes and sold out the textile workers in his district by voting for CAFTA. He had used the publicity of a Dubya visit to his district a view days ago to tout his "opposition" to CAFTA, but lo and behold he had a last minute change of heart and decided to vote for it.

This creates a big opening in a less-than-10% district. Rumor has it that several may be considering a bid, including NC lawyer Swain Wood, a Janet Reno relative.

by FedFarmer on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:58:06 PM EST

Thanks for the Heads Up (none / 0)

I gotta start some kind of election tracker.

I guess a spread sheet will do the trick.

Does anyone out there know of some sort of election tracking software?

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only 4 of those dems come from blue states. (3.00 / 2)

Therefore, it's likely most of those representatives represent contituencies that are more moderate and conservative on issues like free trade. It's their job first and foremost as Congressmen to vote according to the wishes of those who put them in office -- if this were a Senate vote, then I would expect the democrats to vote in solidarity.

I don't agree with the labeling of these democrats as "traitors" simply because they are voting in favor of something some moderate and most liberal dems may oppose. If they are from your districts where a majority of your fellow dems would oppose CAFTA, yet still voted for the bill, then ok I can see why there would be justified outrage. But again, 11 of 15 representatives in question come from states where the general population leans conservative.

I'm undecided about CAFTA myself, although I support NAFTA. If any of my Florida representatives voted for this bill I wouldn't necessarily be upset, because I agree with most free trade principles. If this were NAFTA, I would be upset if they did not support the bill.

But I believe in FAIR trade, and that's where I part ways with the conservatives...I believe in using free trade principles to allow 3rd world nations gain access to protected 1st world markets, and in doing so help them raise their standard of living. Eventually, such poor nations evolve into consumer societies that will seek higher margin services and goods from developed nations like ours. Because our country has been changing into a services based economy thanks to technological innovation and passing on industrial/manufacturing needs increasingly to less developed countries that are just now moving into their industrial stage, this is beneficial in the long-term to the US.

I don't focus strictly on US workers. I take a longer global view, which happens to be more liberal than a protectionist policy position. I think it is in the best interest of humanity to help pull undeveloped nations out of their poverty by helping them compete with the developed world. The southern hemisphere contains a disproportionate amount of the poorest nations in the world due to developed nations using their economic clout to unfairly protect their corporate constituencies. The EU which fashions itself as so atruistic and fair-minded is just as guilty in protecting its own markets such as sugar from African sugar farmers by circumventing free trade principles.

Again, I'm undecided on CAFTA as I'd prefer an in-depth point by point analysis of both sides of the bill, but I don't believe in protectionism. For now I reserve judgement on this bill and those who voted on it.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:56:24 PM EST

Re: Only 4 of those dems come from blue states. (3.00 / 1)

The general population is dead-set against this legislation no matter how conservative a district. Nobody would lose a seat for voting against CAFTA now voting for it that's another thing. For example Gene Taylor represents a district that voted atleast about 65% for Bush last time and yet he wins by huge margins.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only 4 of those dems come from blue states. (none / 0)

Who is Gene Taylor, because I don't see him on the list of 15. Who I do see is Jim Matheson of Utah -- and a state doesn't get any redder than that. In fact, I'd say democrats like Matheson are pretty much called DINOs by most of you folks, so why the surprise when these conservative dems vote for free trade?

According to his website: http://www.house.gov/matheson/press2005/050727b.htm

Washington DC-Congressman Jim Matheson said that Utah's economic growth was the deciding factor behind his support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement which is scheduled for a vote in the House today.

"The bottom line for me is that CAFTA will create jobs here in Utah by boosting opportunities for our exporters. Removing trade barriers to Utah products is a good thing for our state's economy and employees," said Matheson.

Matheson noted that CAFTA countries are Utah's 5th largest growth market, with the value of exports increasing by $40 million since 1999. He said that nearly one-fifth of all manufacturing workers in Utah depend on exports for their jobs.

"America's markets are already open to CAFTA countries. This agreement will finally open their markets to our goods, farm products and services. Along with the economic benefits, I see free trade as an opportunity to bolster the fragile democracies in our own hemisphere. As President Jimmy Carter says, now is not the time to abandon our friends," said Matheson.

Ok, so Utah's needs may not wash with Ohio's, but he's a Utah congressman, after all. Can I blame him for looking out for the interests of his sphere of influence because it may outsource a job elsewhere in the country? No. If he was a senator, perhaps.

Now a glance across the aisle sees 27 republicans defecting from the GOP ranks. Should we cast blame on them for not marching to the drum of their party leaders? Or shall we credit them for having the spine to vote according to how they believe best serves their represented population? Is the GOP base also branding their own as traitors and thinking of proper punishments to dole out?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 02:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Probably... (3.00 / 0)

but not doing something because someone you dislike/want to upstage did it... well, let's just say that seems a lot like the daddy issues that landed us in Iraq, and with these massive tax cuts and corresponding deficit, and plenty of other bush idoitsyncracies... i'm sorry... was that a slip or a typo?

i should also point out that the repugs you are touting as the standard of behavior regularly avenge crossings from their side, while praising crossings from ours...

so... either way, they've done it, unless we advocate straight party voting for both sides all the time... which makes no sense.

obviously both sides see votes for the other's as a defection and crossovers from the other as bipartisan.

in this case, i feel that the R's crossing were acting on their conscience and the D's were acting on their cash-ience.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 09:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only 4 of those dems come from blue states. (none / 0)

I was using him as an example of someone that voted against this and is strongly against all of the free-trade deals.
http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only 4 of those dems come from blue states. (none / 0)

I took a look at your representative even though he wasn't one of the 15, but is from a red state.

I find it interesting that at his website he does not mention CAFTA at all, however when you look at his district, he does have a link to the Mississipi Development Authority, a lobby group that opposes globalization and supports rather conservative anti-immigrant border control.

http://www.mississippi.org/about_mda/overview.htm

So was Gene Taylor standing up for Mississipians or special interests? Without stating his position and why on his website, it's hard to tell.

You seem to suggest this is a "party-unity" democrat, standing up in principle against free trade, seemingly an example that the 15 democrats voting for CAFTA should emulate. Well, I ask you, was he as principled on September 30th 2004 when he broke ranks with the party along with 36 other democrats and voted in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment to define marriage as that between a man and a woman? Actually, he's the original co-sponser of that amendment:

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/marriageamdt.109th.htm

As you may be aware, during the last Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment on September 30th, 2004. Although the amendment received a majority vote of 227-186, it did not attain the two-thirds majority vote that is required to amend the U.S. Constitution. While many Republicans voted for the amendment and many Democrats voted against it, the vote result proves that the protection of traditional marriage is not a partisan issue. In fact, thirty-six Democrats voted for the amendment, and twenty-seven Republicans voted against it. Nine Republicans and 11 Democrats did not vote at all.

Please know that I share your disappointment in the fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment did not earn enough votes. My support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a deeply held personal and moral position. It is far above petty partisan politics for me, and I hope that was the case for other supporters of the amendment.

I have contacted Representative Musgrave's office and have been informed that she will reintroduce the amendment during the 109th Congress. I have agreed to serve as an original cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

If you are a resident of the State of Mississippi, you probably already know that, on November 2, 2004, 86 percent of Mississippians voted in favor of an amendment to the State Constitution that defines marriage as valid only when between a man and a woman. The same amendment also outlaws marriages between persons of the same gender performed in other states or countries. The passage of this amendment clearly defines the opinions of Mississippians regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. I voted for it as a congressman in Washington, DC and as a citizen in Bay St. Louis.

You can be assured that I will continue to support the traditional definition of marriage as the law of the land as long as I have the privilege of serving as the Congressman from the Fourth District of Mississippi.

Ok, so in a remarkably similar situation, this representative voted according to the desire of the majority of his constituencies. That happened to be against the position of the democratic party, but in this case the amendment he co-sponsored did not pass. He does however vow to re-introduce the amendment again.

So pardon me if I don't quite agree with your logic and see why Gene Taylor is a unity rep in your eyes. He voted against gay marriage because that's clearly how most Mississipi voters feel, and as a rep that's exactly what he should do. As for CAFTA, all I see are signs that he bowed to a corporate lobby. Did he vote against CAFTA because it was for the best interests of Mississipy Development Authority or Mississipi labor? Because it sure didn't have much to do with party unity.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why No Filibuster For CAFTA but for Bolton? (none / 0)

The Democrats, especially the "centrist" or "DLC" types don't know how to wage a war.
Further, the DLC types don't know what war to wage and which one to let go. With such a "brilliant" strategy they can't win the Congress and the White House.
For example, Sen. Biden (D-MBNA/Bank of America) wants to be the Presidential nominee. He didn't lead a filibuster (cloture vote) in the case of CAFTA, but led another one against Bolton.

The latest news is that President Bush will nominate Bolton to the UN Ambassadorship in a recess appointment. What did the Democrats achieve? Nothing, because

(a) Bolton will still be the next UN ambassador;
(b) the Republicans will portray the Democrats, as obstructionist and accuse them of a filibuster.

4. Can you answer Sen. Biden, the "smartest man" in the Senate:

(a) why you didn't filibuster CAFTA but filibustered Bolton?

(b) why you waged a losing battle against Bolton (with a goal that Bolton should not be the UN Ambassador), but did not wage a war against CAFTA?

Bolton leaves his job as Bush leaves the White House in 2008. CAFTA is more important because it affects people who are losing their jobs.

A wise man once said "choose your battles carefully."
A very funny, but insightful look at Sen. Biden and the bankruptcy bill is here -

SENATOR BIDEN (D-MBNA/BoA) SOLVES THE VOTER FRAUD WITH VOTER-CARD PHOTO ID ISSUED BY MBNA AND BOA

June 30, 2005 entry at http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog

by dtlc on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:01:44 PM EST

You're dead on (3.00 / 3)

it's the old bait and switch routine. Get the guileless masses concerned about emotionally-charged side show issues that mean nothing (like abortion and gay-marriage, Grand Theft Auto, Janet Jackson's breast, flag burning), but always, always, always take care of the corporate machine.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 09:03:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny (none / 0)

How when I posted this diary about removing Moderate Dems I got slammed.

Sounds like a waste of money
Trying to take out Democrats when we only got 44 of them

What?
We are the minority party in the U.S. House and Senate, and have very few Governor's and what do you want to do? Go after moderates.
How about spending your time and effort actually defeating some republicans?

Yet, here we are bemoaning the fact that Moderate Democrats have stabbed us in the back. Seems to me that we HAVE to get progressives to run against every Moderate Democrat.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 08:58:52 AM EST

Moderate vs. Progressive is not the issue here (3.00 / 1)

It's simple corruption. Supposing that the 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA in the house are all "moderates". You want to replace them with progressives. I don't really care who replaces them as long as they support the middle class. After all, the "moderate" position was clearly to go with the vast majority of Americans, to say nothing of democrats, and oppose the bill.

Moderates and progressives agree: get these bums outta here!

by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 09:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moderate vs. Progressive is not the issue here (none / 0)

It sure isn't. Got corruption? Check out Weller. I watched the whole vote until the very end. Waited for those last two votes for a while. Then a woman came rushing in to La Hood (Rep from IL.) and he jumped up and banged down the gavel. I thought it looked funny. I was thinking they ended the vote before it could be tied. But if what you say is true, CAFTA won by ONE VOTE. Then consider this: that vote was cast by Rep. Jerry "Wily" Weller (IL 11th) who recently married Guatemala congresswoman and FRG THUG, Zury Rios Montt. Check out the details and the letter to the House Ethics Committee Kankakee Voices sent about this flagrant conflict of interest:
www.kankakeevoices2.blogspot.com
We and local newspapers had been asking that Weller abstain from the vote like he promised during his re-election campaign last year, and step down from his seat on the International Relations Committee - Western Hemisphere.

by Kankakee Voice on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 10:32:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA (none / 0)

These are the 15 who voted for CAFTA:

Melissa Bean (IL)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Norm Dicks (WA)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
William Jefferson (LA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Greg Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Vic Snyder (AR)
John Tanner (TN)
Ed Towns (NY)

I hope they get some phonecalls from their constituents about this one. It is no wonder we can't get a majority...

by ugagal00 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 10:03:58 AM EST

Re: The 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA (3.00 / 1)

I suspect that for some of them, CAFTA would benefit their district. That looks like the case for the three south Texas Democrats.

Some of them have no excuse, though.

by wayward on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 10:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If CAFTA won by one vote, check out Weller (none / 0)

I watched the whole vote until the very end. Waited for those last two votes for a while. Then a woman came rushing in to La Hood (Rep from IL.) and he jumped up and banged down the gavel. I thought it looked funny. I was thinking they ended the vote before it could be tied. But if what you say is true, CAFTA won by ONE VOTE. Then consider this: that vote was cast by Rep. Jerry "Wily" Weller (IL 11th) who recently married Guatemala congresswoman and FRG THUG, Zury Rios Montt. Check out the details and the letter to the House Ethics Committee Kankakee Voices sent about this flagrant conflict of interest:
www.kankakeevoices2.blogspot.com
We and local newspapers had been asking that Weller abstain from the vote like he promised during his re-election campaign last year, and step down from his seat on the International Relations Committee - Western Hemisphere.

by Kankakee Voice on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 10:30:42 AM EST

What's up with the House Democrats site polls? (none / 0)

OK, so I just went and made my statement at the House Democrats site, asking Pelosi to take a harder line against Democrats who abandon key Democratic principles when it really matters. Then I surfed around, taking a bunch of their little polls (in the left column) as I did so.

WHAT is going on with those polls? Who is answering them? It looks like a lot of Republicans to me... 68% feel that Bush's $528 billion deficit is RESPONSIBLE?

I really got weirded out when out of a list of 4 options, 82% of respondents felt that Congress' highest priority should be "going to the moon."

Huh?

Tim Wolfe

by bruorton on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:33:22 AM EST

Maybe it was "to the moon" (none / 0)

As in in <fistshaking>"To the moon Alice!"</fistshaking>

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or it was that... (none / 0)

... this COngress should personally travel to the moon, and let 435 Denny K clones take over

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since when is protectionism a dem principle? (none / 0)

Protectionism is a conservative ideology, and this is easily seen through historical precedent:

Tariff of 1828
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

Morill Tariff of 1861
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff

Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

How about Grover Cleveland's stand against protectionist policies touted by the republicans in 1887?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff#Tariff_in_American_History

Democratic president Grover Cleveland redefined the issue in 1887, with his stunning attack on the tariff as inherently corrupt, opposed to true republicanism, and inefficient to boot: "When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to ever citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise... it is plain that the exaction of more than [minimal taxes] is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice." The election of 1888 was fought primarily over the tariff issue, and Cleveland lost. Republican Congressman William McKinley argued, "Free foreign trade gives our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations to the injury of our labor, our tradespeople, and our farmers. Protection keeps money, markets, and manufactures at home for the benefit of our own people." Democrats campaigned energetically against the high McKinley tariff of 1890, and scored sweeping gains that year; they restored Cleveland to the White House in 1892.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR were both supporters of free trade principles and lowered or eliminated protectionist barriers under their administrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff#Tariff_in_American_History

Woodrow Wilson made a drastic lowering of rates a major priority for his presidency. The 1913 Underwood Tariff cut rates, but the coming of world war in 1914 radically revised trade patterns, and made tariffs much less important. When the Republicans regained power after the war they restored the usual high rates. The Great Depression was worldwide, and international trade shrank drastically. The crisis baffled the GOP, and it unwisely tried its magic one last time in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This time it backfired, as Britain, Germany, France and other industrial countries retaliated with their own tariffs and special bilateral trade deals. American imports and exports both went into a tailspin. Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers made promises about lowering tariffs on a reciprocal country-by-country basis (which they did), hoping this would expand foreign trade (which it did not.) Frustrated, they gave much more attention to domestic remedies for the depression; by 1936 the tariff issue had faded from politics, and the revenue it raised was small. In World War Two both tariffs and reciprocity were insignificant compared to trade channeled through Lend Lease. After the war the U.S. promoted the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT established in 1947, to minimize tariffs and other restrictions, and to liberalize trade among all capitalist countries. In 1995 GATT became the World Trade Organization WTO; with the collapse of Communism its open markets/low tariff ideology became dominant worldwide in the 1990s.

It was Reagan and Bush Sr who changed sides from traditional conservative protectionist policies and embraced free trade and liberalized open markets, ie globalization.

The GOP under Ronald Reagan and George Bush abandoned the protective ideology, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade. Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA. It was based on George H. W. Bush's plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. President Clinton, with strong Republican support, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions. Likewise in 2000 he worked with Republicans to give China entry into WTO and "most favored nation" trading status (i.e. low tariffs). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, with prosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor. They promised that free trade meant lower prices for consumers. It also meant lower wages and fewer jobs in older industries that could no longer compete. Opposition to liberalized trade came increasingly from labor unions, but their shrinking size and diminished political clout repeatedly left them on the losing side.

Globalization is a liberal ideology. Free trade is a liberalization of market principles and takes a world view. Protectionism is a historically conservative ideology. Need more proof? Take a look at Goldwater paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan who are strict protectionists and vehemently oppose free trade principles.

http://www.theamericancause.org/

World government, immigrant invasion, Americans only! Buchanan is consistent if anything. So the Pat Buchanan stand on protectionism is the new democratic principle you say?

Count me out. I'm with Wilson, Roosevelt, Carter, and Clinton. I support the liberalization of trade as a means of leveling the playing field with developing nations. I believe it's in America's long term interest, as well as humanity's as a whole, to take a global view on trade.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since when is protectionism a dem principle? (none / 0)

There is a difference between free trade and getting screwed.

I'm no protectionist, but this is a bad deal for everyone but the corporations.

by wayward on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 10:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Free Trade (none / 0)

Free Trade isn't Free

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:29:20 PM EST

regarding Dennis Moore (ks-3rd) (3.00 / 1)

Unlike the case in most parts of the country, Cafta is a good thing for the KS 3rd. KS 3 is the poster child for the post-industrial tech-economy.

Moreover, Dennis Moore has carved out a public image of someone who does whats best for his district, which may or may not be congruent with what his party asks him to do.

To vote against CAFTA would have violated that relationship with his district.

Demanding partisan loyalty before district loyalty is irresponsible and patently partisan.

I look forward to seeing how y'all react to Senate defectors.

by tlongpine on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 04:05:19 PM EST

Pelosi tried to read the renegades the riot act (none / 0)

after the bankruptcy bill. They basically laughed in her face.

Committee assignments are one thing.
Committee chairmanships are another.

Pelosi is the minority leader. She doesn't have much to take away.

by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 01:25:55 AM EST

SDF (none / 0)

各地机票预定电话
北京机票：福州机票：
010-89590599(国内)
上海机票：深圳机票：
021-52385605
广州机票：西安机票：
020-38828892(国内)
长沙机票：青岛机票：
0731-4449549
成都机票：昆明机票：
028-85563048(国内)
杭州机票：
0571-56180877
武汉机票：
027-51518151(国内)
大连机票：
0411-88821866
南京机票：
025-86081380(国内)
厦门机票：
0592-5161000

by llalx on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:59:15 PM EST

good (none / 0)

Good story!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

by kevinliao on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 11:33:09 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.