Party of obstructionists strikes again

[vulturesrow]

Well the party of no ideas strikes another blow for obstructionist politics. The Democrats are opposing CAFTA. This is sad because free trade is something that economists almost universally agree on and was one of the issues that I give high marks to the Clinton administration for. In fairness, there are some Republicans that oppose, mostly from sugar and textile producing stattes, but its largely Democrat driven.

Read Michael Barones column here.

Peter Brookes' column on CAFTA

[jokerswild]

You have never been fair. Resistance to one party dictatorship is mandatory for anyone that loves freedom.

You hate freedom, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. That has been clear over and over again.

[ACPlayer]

Is any opposing viewpoint automatically "obstructionist"?

THat is really, really sad.

FWIW, I am, generally, in favor of free trade and also in favor of recognizing that each coin has two sides.

[thatpfunk]

Yeah, but when the ignorant Repubs block scientific research it is God's will...

I'd call it a double standard, but that would undermine the Repubs stupidity.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Is any opposing viewpoint automatically "obstructionist"?

THat is really, really sad.

FWIW, I am, generally, in favor of free trade and also in favor of recognizing that each coin has two sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not because its an opposing viewpoint. It just seems that on every major issue since the election, the Democrats just reflexively oppose anything the Bush administration offers, including (thus far) the progressive compromise Bush offered on Social Security. In my opinion, free trade is a no-brainer, is something that the Democrats have generally had a good record on, and now all the sudden they oppose it. Hence my obstructionism reference. But hey, feel free to keep reading shallow logic into my statements.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but when the ignorant Repubs block scientific research it is God's will...

I'd call it a double standard, but that would undermine the Repubs stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming you are referring to the debate over fetal stem cell research. I am pretty sure that no prominent Republicans said anything about it being the will of God. There are valid moral arguments to be made against the use of fetal stem cells for research. Of course I dont expect you to debate the merits, it just easier to haul out the tired hypocrites canard. Petulance is so much easier than actual discussion isnt it?

[thatpfunk]

Yes it is. I'm just trying to fit in. One silly, unfounded accusation deserves another.

[ACPlayer]

Well, it is not shallow logic on your part but shallow thinking, prechance. No?

The label of obstructionist can be used anytime there is opposition. The democrats by and large have consistently been opposed to free trade agreements --- this is not a reflexive opposition to the Bush administration -- and they make good points sometimes. If there is no opposition to this, then the agreements are likely to be rammed thru without considering environmental concerns, child labor issues, and perhaps other considerations that are important (though not important at all to big biz). Free trade is generally a good thing, all free trade agreements are not automatically a good thing.

If they were truly obstructionist they would not have voted to give Bush the power to wage war, for example.

Perhaps the new rules in the Senate should be the minority can just stay at home and collect their paychecks. No need to come to work and be "obstructionist". Just trust the majority to do all the right things.

Silly attitude, IMO.

[nicky g]

CAFTA is not all about free trade. For instance I understand it contains "intellectual property" provisions which will restrict access to generic drugs in Central America and which ardently pro-free trade economists such as Jagdish Bhagwati have pointed out is not a free trade issue and arguably a restriction on trade. Furthermore, as these agreements rarely liberalise trade fully, and contain all sorts of qualifications, hedges and so on, it makes sense to look at them in details and see if everyone is really benefiting equally/liberalising equally. There are good and bad ways to go about "freeing" trade.

Although I would imagine many Democrat politicians are opposing CAFTA for simple populist/protectionist reasons, you can't simply call a complex agreement "free trade" and then say it's a no-brainer. You have to look at what it actually says.

[ACPlayer]

It is not obstructionism if it obstructs scientists from doing research. Only if it obstructs Bush/Republicans.

The "obstructionist" slant on VR's OP like the general tone from the right wing, when opposed on any viewpoint, these days is generally childish and petulant.