Despite enormous pressure, threats to block things they need for their districts, and personal arm-twisting by Bush, 27 Republicans disobeyed their party leadership and voted against CAFTA.

CAFTA passed by a single vote because 15 Democrats voted for it.

Here's David Sirota's excellent take on the issue:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

Sirota feels that these so-called Democrats should lose their jobs or at the very least, stop pretending to be Democrats. In particular he targets nine of them who had no need to betray their party.

I see it somewhat differently, of course. From my skeptical and cynical point of view, the ruling corporate party consists of two arms, the Democrats and the Republicans, and whenever the corporatocracy needs something that they can't get enough Republicans to pass (some are actually somewhat loyal to their constituents, and a few even have some principles left), they can always count on some pro-corporate Democrats to step up to the plate.

I'm extremely glad to see that my own Representative, Susan Davis of California's 53rd District, did not vote for CAFTA. But Davis remained "undecided" until the last possible second. Had the corporatocracy not been able to find enough votes elsewhere, Davis was obviously willing to perform the needed service. Davis didn't choose to vote against CAFTA because it was wrong, or because it was bad for this district, but because there were enough Democrats voting for it that Davis didn't have to. I'd be interested in knowing how many other Democrats remained "undecided" until the very end, having no position on CAFTA and waiting to hear if their corporate masters required their services.

People without principles aren't uninformed or undecided, they're just unprincipled.

i'm officially denouncing my support for the democratic party after this one. if they can't keep their members "in line" with the democratic party's way of thinking, how can they think they can govern or unify a country?

i despise republicans, but at least they all keep on the same page...this is what makes them a stronger group than the weasels who call themselves democrats.


The 15 Democratic sellouts were:

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)

Let's be clear - all of these people should never get a red cent from labor unions or the progressive community again, and that goes even for the ones who represent marginal districts. The idea that this was a "tough vote" for a Democrat who represents a swing district doesn't hold water - no one is getting voted out of office over voting against CAFTA, and voting for American workers. Remember, polls show that Americans are sick and tired of Congress passing these corporate-written "free" trade deals that sell out ordinary workers.

But, let's further break this down. Which of these 15 Members has CONSISTENTLY been selling out the Democratic Party and America's middle class? The way we find that out is by looking at other recent votes on key economic issues, such as the Bankruptcy Bill, and the bill to limit citizens' legal rights and protect corporations that abuse Americans.

I'm not going to defend those defectors who voted with the Republicans, but the title of your thread is misleading.

Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Republicans- 202 Ayes, 27 Noes, 2 NV
Democrats- 15 Ayes, 187 Noes
Independent- 1 No

I think the thread title is...misleading, at best. Republicans and Democrats conspired together to pass CAFTA. Laying this at the feet of the Democrats is a cheap shot, not one I would expect here. To say that any one of those fifteen Democrats is reperesentative of them all is a lot like, well, like racism or sexism or any other flavor of intolerance. I am opposed to CAFTA, to all of this "globalization" crap. And the driving force behind it is American "free-market capitalism"...cancer, cancer, cancer.

Okay, point taken. The Democrats alone didn't pass CAFTA. The Republicans alone couldn't have passed CAFTA either. It took corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats working together to pass CAFTA.

The same thing happened in the Senate previously. There are 100 Senators, the Republicans have a majority, and CAFTA passed the Senate 55 to 45. Twelve Republicans voted against it, so the Republicans couldn't have passed it by themselves. But ten Democrats, including Diane Feinstein (D)CA, voted for it, so it passed. It took both arms of the corporate party to pass CAFTA, and that's how it worked both in the Senate and in the House.

The Washington Post reported that there was a lot of arm-twisting (arm-breaking is what they said--into a thousand pieces), and reports of pork barrel promises for cooperative votes, along with promises of corporate campaign financing for those who went along to get along.

I think what I'm trying to say isn't that everyone in the ruling corporate party is beholden to corporations, but that there are enough who are in both the Democratic and Republican arms of the ruling corporate party, to ensure that they can pass whatever they want on behalf of corporations. We the people just don't have enough representatives who represent us instead of representing corporations, in Congress. The corporatocracy is nonpartisan.

folkie does this constantly. If every Democrat in Congress doesn't fight the Republicans, he simply accuses the entire party of corruption, and claims they are all just as bad as the Republicans. That absurd refrain is getting old. Everyone knows that it is very seldom that every member of either party in the House votes unanimously on any subject. I think it's amazing that 187 out of 202 democrats stuck together for once.

I'm as pissed off as anyone else that we lost on this one, but to say the Democrats passed CAFTA because they could only get 93% of their Congressmen vote no is ridiculous.

This is more proof they play two sides of the same coin America. We need to crush this 2 party puppet monopoly. CNN/Dems or Fox/Pubs they both collude to spread different divisive disease, to rip this country apart, and keep us all at each others throats, it's working. Separate we will all fall, whether we think we're dems or pubs we will all fall, and they will win. John Bolton works for our Collective Gov, to instigate war, and any grandstanding by supposed pseudo Elite Democrats is a joke. American hegemony pays Allegiance to no party.

The software update won't let me change the thread title--I was going to admit defeat and change to: Corporicans Pass CAFTA.

But I think you're also distorting my position slightly. For example, I'm not saying that the entire Democratic Party is as corrupt as the 27 Republicans who voted against CAFTA. That would be absurd. Those 27 are apparently somewhat less corrupt than their party as a whole.

If you start with the assumption that the Republican Party is bad and the Democratic Party is good, or at least not quite as bad, then it does look like I'm saying that the Democratic Party is as corrupt as the Republicans, who are obviously much worse, so I'm obviously wrong.

But if you start with the assumption that corporations (whose primary responsibility, legally, is to their bottom line, which means that in order to obey corporate law, they must put corporate profits above such things as even the known loss of life their products or wastes may be causing to ordinary people) are bad, and that human rights are good, my support for the principle that it isn't Democrats against Republicans, but corporations against ordinary people, becomes less obviously wrong, if still nonpartisan.

John Edwards, Kerry's running-mate in 2004, built his career on fighting big corporations to gain compensation for people they harmed. So I don't hold it against him that he's a Democrat, and that Kerry, or the Democratic Party, or something, forced him to back down when he wanted to demand recounts the way they'd promised. He understood the problem and he knew which side he was on.

The Republican Party also clearly understands the problem, and it knows which side it is on: the corporate side.

I don't feel that the Democratic Party as a whole has clearly understood the problem or taken a position for people and against corporations. Many individual Democrats have, but as far as I can tell, the party itself has not. In other words, if the problem is fascism, i.e., a tyranny of business and government united over ordinary people, the Democratic Party appears, at least to me, to be less an opposition party, than a colluding partner.

Some people here tend to agree with me, but as far as I can tell they did so long before they ever encountered me, and others seem to feel that any criticism of the Democratic Party at all is disloyal, inappropriate, and incorrect, perhaps all three at once. Okay, I'm guilty as charged. If it doesn't stand up for my rights, from my point of view, it isn't on my side. That's just how I feel, okay?

as an individual and as a union worker, i have always supported the democrats any way i could. being a former auto worker, i know first hand what NAFTA has done for the auto industry alone. we used to be 4,000 strong, then we lost about 2500 jobs (over a period of time) to mexico. with buy outs and cut-backs the number was reduced even more. the former facility is now down to 500 employees and just announced they will be closing it forever within 2 years. i'm lucky because i retired with full everything. however, there are many other workers who have also lost jobs to NAFTA during the past years. i can't blame clinton because (if you do your homework) the NAFTA bill was already passed during bush's term, clinton inherited it)

i was hoping that the "party of the people" would have stood together on CAFTA and at least one time, stood up to the republican machine. i must have missed the day the mass-castration of the party was done. those 15 democrats would have tied the vote, and probably could have convinced some republicans to vote NO. but, i guess the perks offered under the table were much more important to those 15 than the thousands of american jobs that will be lost in the years to come.

needless to say, i am really disappointed in the democratic party, and likewise, the leadership of that party. obviously, they are all free agents and can basically do as they please with no "core" value to glue the party together. i'm beginning to see why they are getting their asses kicked so much even by some real nut cases the republicans throw against them.

i may get over this sooner or later, but for now, i sure hope none of them come knocking at the door and ask for a contribution. perhaps folkie is just where i'm at right about now and if i have lost faith in the democrats.

Mga, if a lifelong Democrat like yourself has lost faith in the Democrats, they undeniably have a problem. And not just a little problem, but one of those great big problems where, or so I've heard, if you don't admit that you have a problem and seek help, you are unlikely to recover.

no need to worry...i'll recover. all i have to do is see bush on the news.

I didn't mean that you have a problem, mga, but that the Democratic Party has a problem. There are still many people who believe that the most important thing is to support the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, and they don't want to admit that so long as the Democratic Party is not a strong and unified opposition to corporate rule, electing Democrats won't change the fact of corporate rule.

Bush is the Democrats' biggest fundraiser. All the Democrats have to do is say, "Look at Bush! You don't want that, do you? So vote for us--we're the only alternative there is."

Which would be fine if they were a real alternative.

A Democratic President and Congress who do not oppose the war, will not end the war.

A Democratic President and Congress who do not oppose globalization, will not stop globalization.

A Democratic President and Congress who don't care more about human rights than about corporate profit, won't improve our quality of life, or the quality of life anywhere else.

CAFTA is a gift from politicians to corporations, and ordinary people will suffer greatly because of it. More jobs will be outsourced, wages and worker protections will continue to decline, and more family farmers will lose their farms.

I'm $1.15 a day away from the official government definition of abject poverty. Not that I'm in dire circumstances--I'm really more comfortable than most people in the world. But I'm not giving any more money to political parties or candidates under any circumstances. They have a lot more money than I do, and if my financial situation is enough for me, they'll just have to get by on the millions (and in some cases billions) they already have. If they can't, they must not be as good at financial management as I am, and they certainly shouldn't be in government.

I'll modify what I have said......


Support the Democrats 110%, and delete those who do not oppose the corporate government as was clearly their election promise as Democrats and elect real Democrats, and support them 110%!

Oh yeah, and support election reforms so that your vote really is your vote!

Well, I guess I really am uninformed then. I didn't even know that a promise to oppose the corporate government was part of the Democratic Party platform.

If it is, I've got a lot of apologies to make.

Do you have a link?

Oh yeah, and where can I find that "delete" button you refer to?

Oh well wait a minute. You wanna be specific about all the various types of Democrats.
Republicans too? And all these various types are bought and paid for?
Should we not hammer those Demo's that voted for Cafta and should we not revile them as acting more like Repugs than Demo's?


You are a bit confusing,
but I do believe you fully understood the intent of the message in the post.
Yes?

I told you, I am not the researcher. I rarely work with specifics. I leave that to others like yourself, who enjoy getting deep into this stuff and who have the time. But that doesn't mean I am uninformed, stupid, or otherwise not up to speed. Although you are free to think as you wish.


Now, do you wish to be on the same team, or do you wish to fragment and quibble over symantics?


By the way. My passion isn't politics. I'm an environmentalist, and my specific soap box is waste reduction. The reduction of any and all waste! So much can be made available simply by not wasting it!

I am not simply an activist, I'm a proactivist! (Insert Signature)

False choice, Sky. I'll be on any team that opposes corporate rule. But I won't be on any team just because a minority on that team personally oppose corporate rule, even though the team as a whole does not. You see that as a semantic quibble, but I see it as a valid distinction.

Take this example: A group asks me to join them and support them because they've heard that I am concerned about environmental issues. So I ask their position on environmental issues. They tell me they don't have one, but several of their members are environmentalists. They also admit that several of their members consider environmentalists to be dangerous obstructions to corporate profits. Should I join them?

Cool! So, um, where's that darned delete button, because I can think of several Democrats I consider to be a total waste.

It wasn't me that said it was a button!

True. But you didn't answer my question either.

Here's the letter I wish I could send to Nancy Pelosi:

Dear House Democratic Leader Pelosi:

I heard that you are reviewing the committee assignments of the 15 "Democrats" who voted for CAFTA in the House. I hope Senate Democrats are also reviewing the assignments of of the ten "Democratic" Senators like Diane Feinstein who also voted for CAFTA.

But I think you should also carefully consider the committee assignments of my Representative, Susan Davis, of California's 53rd District. Davis took no position on CAFTA whatsoever, and was, according to her office, "weighing her options," until the moment of the vote. Although Davis did finally vote against CAFTA, Davis was weighing her own options, not the needs of her district or the wishes of her constituents. In other words, had the Republicans not already had enough votes to pass it, Davis was ready and willing to step up to the plate for a big enough reward.

The San Diego Environmental Health Coalition actually escorted Davis on a trip to Tijuana, to personally observe the devastating effects of NAFTA, and Davis is fully aware of globalization's cost to us in jobs, wages, and worker protections. Davis was not in the least uninformed, but still chose to take no position until the moment of the vote. How many other "Democrats" are there like Davis who absolutely refused to take a position because they were holding out to see what they could get?

I voted for Davis last time, but I think I'll have to consider my options next time. That means not taking a position on her candidacy one way or the other, not contributing to her campaign or campaigning for her, etc. I may be forced to vote for her again, but I'm only going to vote the way she does--without taking a position until I cast my vote. And if I find a candidate who is more to my liking, that's who I'll vote for. I think I've learned a lot from Davis, but I don't think any of it is good for Democrats.

Respectfully,

----------

Of course I can't send such a letter. You can't send an email to a Congressperson unless you are in their district. Having worked for a Congressperson, I also know that if I sent a snailmail letter, they would simply forward it to my district instead of reading it. They call it "Congressional courtesy," but I call it a rigid hierarchical structure to prevent people stuck with a representative who won't represent them, from contacting someone in another district who might.

Some people have found ways around this. My temporary avatar, until I find another one of Nader, is John Conyers attempting to deliver a petition with my name on it, along with the names of about 600,000 other people, many of whom, like me, live in districts throughout the country with Democratic representatives who didn't attend the Conyers hearing and weren't there helping to present our petition. Since we couldn't contact him through his website, Conyers just set up a blog. He may be a Democrat, but he isn't stupid. And, as always, he is going to continue to fight for us whether or not he gets any support from the party he has been loyal to for so many years.

*




On my keyboard, it's right next to the any key!


I'm using a Dell keyboard borrowed from work 'cause my kid spilled soda pop on mine!

Yessir, Democrats didn't come to Conyers meeting.

Odd, I still had my old computer and watched it on C-Span. Conyers was delegated to a little room not much bigger than a closet in the basement, and the room was filled.

Meanwhile, the Rs scheduled 11 votes during that meeting.

Democrats came in as they could, many of them. And many could not come because of the congestion plus the 11 votes going on.

It is easy to throw stones at people we don't like, but it isn't necessarily fair. Conyers was fantastic and is fantastic, and so are many other Dems.

I just will not throw out all Dems because SOME of them are not what I would like them to be. Give donations to particular people you respect, and if you respect no one--it isn't necessarilty a reflection on the politicians.

Neither will I. My criticisms are directed at the Democratic Party for not having an anti-PNAC platform. The Republican Party supports the PNAC agenda. In order to be a real opposition party, the Democratic Party would have to oppose the PNAC agenda.

I am opposed to the PNAC agenda.

I would like to be a part of any group that is also opposed to the PNAC agenda.

So if a group comes to me and asks me to join them and support them because they've heard that I'm opposed to the PNAC agenda, I'm going to ask them what their group's position is on the PNAC agenda.

If they say they don't actually have a position on the PNAC agenda, but that some of their members are opposed to it, while some of their members support it, I'm going to wonder at the motives of anyone who tells me that the best way to oppose the PNAC agenda is to support that group 110%.

Wow mga, for once you've said something enlightening. You're absolutely right, thanks for the heads up.

For those too lazy to look it up, NAFTA was signed into law by Bush Sr in December of '92 and went into effect on January 1st 1994.

Although NAFTA started with Bushco/PNAC, it was Clinton who shepherded it through Congress and signed it:

For those to lazy to look it up, here are the links:

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461519503/Pre...igns_NAFTA.html

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199401--.htm

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/votes/index.cfm

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2582



http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm

All of your articles refer to how Clinton helped push it through congress, which is still equally as bad.

Bush, Sr., along with the Mexican President and the Canadian Prime Minister, signed NAFTA, but it still had to be passed through Congress here before we became a party to it.

For example, a President can sign a treaty with another country or countries, say the Kyoto treaty, or the Convention On Torture, but if it doesn't pass our Congress, we are still not a party to that treaty.

And it was Clinton who was responsible for getting it through Congress. So what Bush Sr. signed wasn't binding on us, but what Clinton signed was.