[lbo-talk] A dimes bit of difference and then some...

[R]

At 05:17 PM 8/16/2004, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "R" <rhisiart at charter.net>
> >nathan, you conveniently forget NAFTA, a "free trade" bipartisan effort
>the
> >republicans pushed for years and clinton signed into law.   the  unions
>and
> >the people are thrown crumbs when the loaf -- and the entire bakery --
>goes
> >to business.  this is the democratic party, and has been for decades.  the
> >democrats grease the pole where the republican's don't.
>
>I didn't forget it, but NAFTA just illustrates the differences between the
>parties.  Clinton aside, two-thirds of Congressional Democrats voted
>AGAINST NAFTA.

you're joking, nathan, right?

house HR 3450 on NAFTA passed in november, 1993, with the democrats voting 
234 against, 200 for; and the republicans voting 102 against to 156 for.

democrats did even worse when it came to GATT/WTO.  this demonstrated the 
"difference between parties" all right.

during a lame duck session november, 1994, the house approved the uruguay 
round of GATT -- establishing the WTO -- 288 to 146.  democrats 167 for, 89 
against.  republicans 121 for, 56 against.

both ross perot and pat buchanan were against NAFTA.  neither are 
pro-labor.  neither are democrats.


>As I often note, all the folks who talk about "parties"
>conveniently like to just talk about Clinton when it suits them, since it
>allows them to ignore the radically different voting records of most
>Democrats versus the average voting records of most Republicans.

since clinton isn't radically different from republicans.  he's such a good 
example of what the democratic party stands for in practice.

you assume votes are rational decisions when most congresspeople never read 
the bill they're voting on, much less know anything about it.  didn't you 
see ron dellums speaking to moore in Fahrenheit 9/11?


>Fast track was defeated by the Democrats under Clinton, but the GOP
>Congress with Bush's support pushed it through.
>
>-- Nathan Newman

congress gave nixon fast track in 1973, which was used by presidents in a 
"traditional" manner for several years.   in 1992, congress gave clinton 
fast track, expiring in 1995, which he used to approve NAFTA and the WTO.

clinton kept trying to get congress to renew fast track but NAFTA was such 
a disaster that he was afraid to push for a vote.  in 1998, clinton screwed 
up his courage, made another try but lost the vote.

bush, no different from clinton, a democrat, on this issue, has a 
republican congress which approved fast track.  nevertheless, the US house 
approved fast track only by one vote in december, 2001.  which means a lot 
of republicans voted against.

nathan, i believe you're experiencing a democratic party that doesn't exist.

R


>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk