if the GOP is so bad,

why are some in our party pushing part of their agenda?

be more specific about "their agenda" for the un-initiated such as I.

Never-ending war.

Amazing, isn't it?

But this is the "Democrats'" strategy - just stay oh-so-slightly to the left of the Republicans, because we won't vote for a third party, and they'll be the lesser of two evils.

Clever, no?

Didn't that already pass? Which Dem is "pushing" NAFTA?

NAFTA was initially conceived and drafted under GH Bush,
and Clinton couldn't get a majority of Congressional Democrats
to vote for it in 1993. Hillary has recently commented
on the failure of NAFTA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071008/clinton-economy/

NAFTA was a cornerstone of Clinton's first term. Drafted under GHW Bush, yes, but pushed through a Democratic Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.

Bush tried to use the fast-track to ram NAFTA through the Congress.
He ran out of time. Clinton added labor and environmental
provisions, subsequent effectiveness nothwithstanding.

NAFTA
Senate vote on 11/20/93:
Yes No NV
Democrats 27 28 1
Republicans 34 10
Total 61 38

House vote on 11/17/93:
Yes No
Democrats 102 156
Republicans 132 43
Total 234 199


Yes No
Democrats: 129 284
Republicans: 166 53

68% of voting Democrats said NO

Source: Washington Post

Bill Clinton made it a centerpiece of his first term, and got enough Dem support for it to pass. That is was negotiated by Bush I only supports my OP.

And please, quote Hillary's qualified "condemnation" of the agreement.

"why are some in our party pushing part of their agenda?"

That sentence was put in the present tense, not the past tense.

Maybe you should have mentioned slavery. The Democratic Party used to be the party of slavery

I'm waiting re: NAFTA.

The Democratic Party has always been in favor of trade. They're not about to renounce trade and the party has never been opposed to trade. The idea that it is a republican policy is incorrect

I oppose NAFTA, but I don't oppose trade.

to improve it's side agreements concerning labor and environmental issues. The one exception, Kucinich, wants to pull out of NAFTA.

Is it the repuke position that NAFTA should be either modified or withdrawn from? If it is, then you are right, and the dems are supporting a repuke policy. But if they don't, then you are wrong.

Since you are for trade, may I assume that you would support NAFTA if it were to be modified? If so, then how could you call the dems position a "repuke position" when you agree with it? Or is my assumption wrong?

The rest of your post is ill-informed.

Do you really think that any of the repukes are calling for NAFTA to be modified?

The dems are. So how are the dems pushing the repuke agenda when then repukes don't want to modify NAFTA?

after ignoring the relevant question I asked of you?

The dems want to modify NAFTA. What evidence do you have that modifying NAFTA is a part of the repuke agenda, as you claimed in your OP?

Or have you given up defending your "there's no difference" OP, and now trying to settle on making this a NAFTA argument?

The dems want to modify NAFTA.

Kucinich and Edwards want to. It's a show for the others. What changes do you really think HRC would make to NAFTA?

What evidence do you have that modifying NAFTA is a part of the repuke agenda, as you claimed in your OP?


Where did I say in the OP that modifying NAFTA was part of the GOP agenda? Complete with quotes, please.

Or have you given up defending your "there's no difference" OP

Did you even read the OP?

you named NAFTA.

So, do you have any evidence that modifying NAFTA is part of the repuke agenda?

ALL BUT ONE dem presidential candidate wants to modify NAFTA. Do you have any evidence that modifying NAFTA is a part of the repuke agenda? Care to share that evidence with the rest of us?

And how many posts will it take before you defend your OP by providing evidence that Dems are pushing the repuke agenda?

NAFTA + CAFTA = SHAFTA

NAFTA + CAFTA =
Posted by Baby Snooks

NAFTA + CAFTA = SHAFTA


On point!
:applause:

Poof! There goes another anti-Dem argument

Are you just generally frustrated or do you have a specific complaint?

I just can't think of any, right now.

:D

Lincoln abolished slavery.
The last good Republican was Teddy Roosevelt.

They've targeted both partys - it's just that the GOP, being disgraced and out of power after Nixon's treasonous behavior, were more receptive to it.

but that's really more practical locally. And there is no common ground on NAFTA/CAFTA. The trans-Nationals are BAD for America.

That what Ralph Nader told us in 2000...so who will you vote for?

x(

Naderites = lithified flower children and diffusely angry.

Where's Nader on the issues BETWEEN presidential election cycles?
Nowhere - just like his diehard followers.

:shrug:

Others are DINOs

Carl Sheeler and his group came to the DU for help in his US Senatorial Campaign last year...he was running as a DEMOCRAT....

As it turned out, he was a weak candidate, and lost to Whitehouse, who is now the sitting US Senator for Rhode Island...But during the General election...Carl was campaigning for the Repub candidate...revealing his true colors....

I have to suspect there are many Sheelers out there...some of whom made it into office....

I hope this suffices