Peru Trade Bill: It's the Money, Stupid

Peru Trade Bill: It's the Money, Stupid
William Greider


In terms of economic consequences, the new trade agreement with Peru is trivial. In political terms, however, it delivers an ominous message. When faced with a choice between money and their own rank-and-file, the Democratic leaders in the House will go with the money, even if it requires them to pass legislation with Republican votes. Even if a majority of their own caucus is opposed. Even if it means handing the shrinking president, George W. Bush, a rare legislative victory.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled it off today at considerable cost to her own reputation. How different are the new Dems in Congress? Not very, it seems. That is a reasonable interpretation of events and the Speaker is now stuck with the burden of disproving it.

Pelosi's lieutenants "whipped" the party caucus energetically and did better than expected--109 Dems voting for the Peru trade bill, 116 Dems against.

But Pelosi still winds up looking like the great triangulator, Bill Clinton, who managed to pass important trade measures like NAFTA only by relying on Republican votes over his own party. Pelosi will come to regret the comparison, I suspect, because it suggests she is unreliable as a party leader, at least if you thought Democrats were going to change things. On the Peru vote, she played big-money contributors and the opposition party against her own troops. Clinton used to do this brilliantly with lots of soulful rhetoric extolling his own courage. Pelosi and team are not so adept.

Why would she depart from her usual form? After all, Pelosi normally won't bring an issue to the House floor unless assured of overwhelming consensus among her members.

Her explanation: "I don't want this party to be viewed as an anti-trade party." That is the same simple-minded non sequitur the multinational establishment always invoke to scold Democrats. None of the Democratic dissenters are arguing for "no trade." They are trying to change the rules of trade so US workers are not the first victims of new agreements. Pelosi argued that the Peru agreement includes an important reform--stronger language in support of labor and environmental standards--and it does. But is there perhaps another reason why she pushed so hard against her own caucus?

more...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=250042

Translation = "We got a good seat at the corporate cash feeding trough and we aren't going to give it up, American workers be damned."

:puke:

(I don't use that smiley very often but Pelosi deserves it)

bite them all in the ass. Apparently they haven't been paying attention:



This country is so screwed.

need to stay in power from all the poor Liberals and Progressives who can't bear the thought of not voting "D" no matter what.

sw

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071107%5cACQRTT200711071603RTTRADERUSEQUITY_1370.htm&

and we hit a recession that will hurt a ton of lower/middle class voters, just watch. The "D" in front of the name doesn't mean much right now, not after the way they have "handled" the Iraqi occupation, SCHIP and other matters that are important to "us". I would never vote Republican but could easily vote Independent, but this could hurt them.

(Banana Republic that is) but God forbid the Democrats be seen as
Anti Trade.

This is why people say there is not a dimes' worth of difference
in the two parties.

Really now they could not stand up to Corporate Lobbiests who
give them the big bucks.

we will never have another isolationist sit in the Speakers chair or White House again. Intermingled economies lead to peace and prosperity for all.

However, your premise is false.

Isolationism isn't the opposite of corporate dominance.

Fair trade isn't isolationist.

And greed isn't a virtue.