While clearly there certainly are US politicians that sympathize with Chavez, I don’t see how not supporting the Colombian Free Trade Agreement makes you a Chavista.
You mean to tell me that some obscurse Congressman from Michigan, Republican or Democrat, that opposes CAFTA because it’ll hurt his district is now a Chavez supporter?
Wow. And I thought the “gusano actos de repudiacion” days were over. I guess not…
Snore. You don’t think Rangel is a Chavista? How about Serrano?
Dude, you like to spread the shit thick. Your attacks on LDB are similar in nature. You say this one is fidel-like and that one conducts an acto de repudio.
great debate tactic. See ya in november.
Henry,
I have no idea what Rangel and Serrano think, and it doesn’t influence me because I’m not reactive.
I just don’t see how one draws the line b/w being against CAFTA = being in favor of Chavez. I personally have no opinion on trade bill, but the comparison is a stretch.
Colombia is our one ally in a region that’s falling to communists. Anyone that doesn’t see this is either ignorant or complicit.
Oh and you can find out exactly what Rangel and Serrano think, just google them. Big fans of Castro and Chavez, both of them.
I don’t know what reactive means. I guess your not being reactive means you don’t care who aligns with you. You don’t care if they are castro agents, castro apologists, etc.
Well I do care about who is who. It’s important.
Henry,
Clearly they wouldn’t be aligned with me on the issue of Cuba if they were Castro-sympathizers.
With regard to Serrano, I am well aware that he is a Castro sympathizer. However, I have never read that Rangel is in favor of Castro or Chavez. He fundamentally disagrees with the embargo — as does most of the foreign policy world — and that’s fine. Those kinds of debates are healthy and it helps keep the subject of Cuba front and center, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Our community has given the embargo this quaisi-theological and emotional importance, vis a vis la Hermita de la Caridad. It’s almost become a caricature of the Cuban American commuity.
Btw, I’m always the first to say that the embargo still has a valuable purpose as a foreign policy tool. But to go from that to saying that anyone who doesn’t support it is in cahootz with Fidel requires a nice stroll with the imagination.
With regard to the CAFTA. I see your point, but I don’t think that being against it makes you an accomplice of Hugo Chavez – that’s absurd and using a regional crisis for political gain. LDB and ILR both voted against NAFTA — I support free-trade because I believe that a vibrant free-market is the cornerstone of a democratic society. But how you get there and what are the trade-offs in the process (environmental, political, labor) must also be considered.
Trade agreements between nations, like most other treaties, laws etc, don’t function in a vacume. There’s a bunch of little variables that must be considered and weighed into the equation.
“But how you get there and what are the trade-offs in the process (environmental, political, labor) must also be considered.”
I agree theoretically that being against CAFTA doesn’t automatically make you a supporter of Chavez. But practically speaking, it pretty much does, wittingly or not.
You can wrangle (so to speak) about environmental/political/labor trade-offs all you want, but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what such trade-off could possibly outweigh all of South America going Red? If that happens, then all of your worst fears about the environment, politics (by definition), and the rights of workers are instantly realized — and that would be just the tip of the iceberg. Colombia and SA would become just like Eastern Europe was, one huge environment-destroying sweatshop where all the employees have their mouths taped shut.
In light of that, whining about whether the Colombian minimum wage or working conditions are identical to here is like obsessing over a broken tail light to such a degree that you cause a 100-car pile-up.
Failure to support free trade with Colombia means you’re either extremely myopic or you sincerely believe that Communism isn’t really all that bad.
No it doesn’t.
Again, I don’t have a personal opinion on the matter because 1. I’m not a legislator and 2. I haven’t rsearched the issue enough to formulate a substantive opinion.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted against NAFTA. Does this mean they were in favor of communism in Canada and Mexico?
Legislators vote based on the needs of their constituents and on the greater common good of the country (Burkean principle), not on the well-being of other nations.
Now, clearly one can argue that communism in South America isn’t favorable to American interests and neither are poor environmental standards, political instability etc.
However, Colombia already has a vibrant free-market society. So, I don’t see how a failure to pass CAFTA will trigger a spiral toward communism.
My belief is that we should give countries economic incentives to enter into, and maintain, these kinds of special agreements with the United States. These incentives should include greater trade and priviledges contingent upon things like political reforms in their countries to get rid of corruption, countinuous work toward higher environmental standards and greater internal opportunities for their middle class.
So, I don’t see how a failure to pass CAFTA will trigger a spiral toward communism.
First of all CAFTA has nothing to do with Columbia, that’s a Central American Free Trade agreement.
What we are talking about is a bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia that the Dems have been playing politics with and stonewalling because they can’t stand to see a strong pro-American government in Latin America. I know you aren’t willing to recognize it but a lot of your Democrat and liberal colleagues really DON’T love America. At least not in its present state where individual liberties trump the “good of all”.
Secondly, the U.S. reneged on a promise to sell Batista arms in 1958. Now Batista could have bought arms anywhere in the world he wanted in did in fact buy the arms he wanted in other countries BUT the message was sent. The U.S. was no longer backing Batista. Even though that wasn’t the intent of the message, public opinion in Cuba turned. The clock had started on Batista’s tenure and his flight became inevitable.
The signals you send your allies and your enemies ARE HUGELY important. Legislators vote based on the needs of their constituents and on the greater common good of the country (Burkean principle), not on the well-being of other nations.
Many times the needs of the constituents conflict with the greater good of the country. For example having protective tariffs may help some people in some state but we all end up paying more for goods than the market would normally dictate.
But the Democrat opposition to the Colombian deal has more to do with Bush Derangement Syndrome and trying to deny him any political victory.
Sorry kid. That’s the way it is.
“Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted against NAFTA. Does this mean they were in favor of communism in Canada and Mexico?”
No, but Canada and Mexico don’t have countries on their borders sponsoring Commie terrorists in Mexico and Canada that are seeking to overthrow the Canadian and Mexican governments, or countries on their borders threatening them with war.
That’s the material point you seem to be willfully missing over and over again. Being for or against a given free trade agreement isn’t the issue — folks within the GOP frequently disagree on free trade. The point is that, as Henry says, it’s about signals sent by a superpower to an ally that is increasingly under siege by its enemies, and even more importantly, the same signal being sent to said enemies that encourages them by telling them that said superpower doesn’t really give a damn when push comes to shove.
The signal is amplified that much more, like the Bat Signal, when the people sending it, like Christopher Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, et al, are known to be sympathetic to Castro and Chavez and just generally to all things so strangely anti-American.
“My belief is that we should give countries economic incentives to enter into, and maintain, these kinds of special agreements with the United States. These incentives should include greater trade and priviledges contingent upon things like political reforms in their countries to get rid of corruption, countinuous work toward higher environmental standards and greater internal opportunities for their middle class.”
The incentives shouldn’t be phony ones whipped up by Big Labor and Big Environment that are deliberately designed to be impossible for any country to meet (e.g., we haven’t even gotten rid of corruption HERE) just so BL and BE and the members of Congress who represent them can have cover to pretend they were serious about hammering out a treaty.
Is Uribe really such a tyrant and is Colombia really not the “vibrant free market society” you just said it is that we should be putting the screws to them on a trade agreement while patting Chavez on the back as Pelosi/Dodd have done and want to do? (Remember Dodd and the PR coup he gave Chavez by letting him sell heating oil at a discount for the New England states in last winter?) Colombia is under siege by FARC and narc terrorists while the New Castro supporting them metastasizes on their border — can’t we give them some kind of a break on a bilateral agreement? How perfect does Colombia have to be before we’re allowed to act like we prefer Colombia to Chavez?
Henry,
– Pardon the “CAFTA” acronym mistake. I was abbreviating in my head “Colombian/American…”
– The Batista 58 comparison with what’s going on now is quite a stretch.
—-
Zhangliqun,
I’m not saying that we should not have a free trade agreement with Colombia. Generally, I am in favor of these kinds of things. However, I feel they need to be executed/maintained and incentivized better.
What I’m saying is that just because one is not in favor of it, doesn’t make them a Chavista. That’s all.
Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it.
Yeah Henry,
But I don’t think that Cuba had a “free trade” issue.
What brought about Fidel were 1. Fidel’s very own malice and (possibly tied) 2. Batista’s incompetence and failure of leadership.
From what I can tell, extremist dictators in Latin America usually come after periods of corruption and disenfranchisement of the people.
That’s why I firmly believe that the United States should tie their trade agreements with economic incentives that are contingent upon Latin American nations taking steps toward passing strong national ethics reforms, allowing for unsensored government “watchdog” groups and greater government transperancy.
We just found out now that LA FARC was giving $$$ to Correa in Ecuador. Latin America should take steps toward making records of campaign contributions public.
It’s not strictly about free trade, I thought I made that abundantly clear. I am writing in English. Colombia has made great strides but don’t be fooled, there are powerful forces that want to take Uribe out of circulation and erase the gains that have been made. Do you know what Colombia was like before he was elected?
It’s about give aid and support for our allies, not equivocating.
There has never been a period in Latin America where there hasn’t been corruption and disenfranchisement.
I never said fidel came to power strictly because of the U.S. but the truth is that an expected policy decision was reneged on and it demonstrated that Batista no longer had the backing of the U.S. That emboldened fidel and more importantly changed the psyche of the Cuban people. No leader of Cuba had ever survived losing U.S. support.
We’re often lamenting the unintended consequences of liberal ideology. Well there comes a time when you have to question whether they are unintended or not.
Do you honestly think people like Correa and Chavez are going to abide by a campaign finance law? C’mon bro.
No, but with greater transparency in governments, people like Chavez and Correa can become more rare.
I also think we need to think about free trade in “bigger picture” terms and expand micro-financing and venture capital opportunities to American businesses that want to invest in Latin America’s growing industries and middle-class.
Henry, I understand your argument that it’s not just about free trade. There is symbolism too. But, there are numerous other ways to show solidarity with a government than entering a free-trade agreement (which I ulitmately believe the US should adopt with even more Latin American states).
I also don’t see “liberal consequences” like the ones you describe. Clearly, trade and family restrictions aren’t “conservative.”
I’m pretty cynical. I think that policy toward Cuba has always been a disaster – both under GOP and Dem administrations.
Free trade is not strictly a partisan or ideological issue. Unfortunately populists on both sides of the aisle embrace protectionism. But if there’s any doubt about where conservative thought leader stand on the issue you should check the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/
While clearly there certainly are US politicians that sympathize with Chavez, I don’t see how not supporting the Colombian Free Trade Agreement makes you a Chavista.
You mean to tell me that some obscurse Congressman from Michigan, Republican or Democrat, that opposes CAFTA because it’ll hurt his district is now a Chavez supporter?
Wow. And I thought the “gusano actos de repudiacion” days were over. I guess not…
Snore. You don’t think Rangel is a Chavista? How about Serrano?
Dude, you like to spread the shit thick. Your attacks on LDB are similar in nature. You say this one is fidel-like and that one conducts an acto de repudio.
great debate tactic. See ya in november.
Henry,
I have no idea what Rangel and Serrano think, and it doesn’t influence me because I’m not reactive.
I just don’t see how one draws the line b/w being against CAFTA = being in favor of Chavez. I personally have no opinion on trade bill, but the comparison is a stretch.
Colombia is our one ally in a region that’s falling to communists. Anyone that doesn’t see this is either ignorant or complicit.
Oh and you can find out exactly what Rangel and Serrano think, just google them. Big fans of Castro and Chavez, both of them.
I don’t know what reactive means. I guess your not being reactive means you don’t care who aligns with you. You don’t care if they are castro agents, castro apologists, etc.
Well I do care about who is who. It’s important.
Henry,
Clearly they wouldn’t be aligned with me on the issue of Cuba if they were Castro-sympathizers.
With regard to Serrano, I am well aware that he is a Castro sympathizer. However, I have never read that Rangel is in favor of Castro or Chavez. He fundamentally disagrees with the embargo — as does most of the foreign policy world — and that’s fine. Those kinds of debates are healthy and it helps keep the subject of Cuba front and center, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Our community has given the embargo this quaisi-theological and emotional importance, vis a vis la Hermita de la Caridad. It’s almost become a caricature of the Cuban American commuity.
Btw, I’m always the first to say that the embargo still has a valuable purpose as a foreign policy tool. But to go from that to saying that anyone who doesn’t support it is in cahootz with Fidel requires a nice stroll with the imagination.
With regard to the CAFTA. I see your point, but I don’t think that being against it makes you an accomplice of Hugo Chavez – that’s absurd and using a regional crisis for political gain. LDB and ILR both voted against NAFTA — I support free-trade because I believe that a vibrant free-market is the cornerstone of a democratic society. But how you get there and what are the trade-offs in the process (environmental, political, labor) must also be considered.
Trade agreements between nations, like most other treaties, laws etc, don’t function in a vacume. There’s a bunch of little variables that must be considered and weighed into the equation.
“But how you get there and what are the trade-offs in the process (environmental, political, labor) must also be considered.”
I agree theoretically that being against CAFTA doesn’t automatically make you a supporter of Chavez. But practically speaking, it pretty much does, wittingly or not.
You can wrangle (so to speak) about environmental/political/labor trade-offs all you want, but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what such trade-off could possibly outweigh all of South America going Red? If that happens, then all of your worst fears about the environment, politics (by definition), and the rights of workers are instantly realized — and that would be just the tip of the iceberg. Colombia and SA would become just like Eastern Europe was, one huge environment-destroying sweatshop where all the employees have their mouths taped shut.
In light of that, whining about whether the Colombian minimum wage or working conditions are identical to here is like obsessing over a broken tail light to such a degree that you cause a 100-car pile-up.
Failure to support free trade with Colombia means you’re either extremely myopic or you sincerely believe that Communism isn’t really all that bad.
No it doesn’t.
Again, I don’t have a personal opinion on the matter because 1. I’m not a legislator and 2. I haven’t rsearched the issue enough to formulate a substantive opinion.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted against NAFTA. Does this mean they were in favor of communism in Canada and Mexico?
Legislators vote based on the needs of their constituents and on the greater common good of the country (Burkean principle), not on the well-being of other nations.
Now, clearly one can argue that communism in South America isn’t favorable to American interests and neither are poor environmental standards, political instability etc.
However, Colombia already has a vibrant free-market society. So, I don’t see how a failure to pass CAFTA will trigger a spiral toward communism.
My belief is that we should give countries economic incentives to enter into, and maintain, these kinds of special agreements with the United States. These incentives should include greater trade and priviledges contingent upon things like political reforms in their countries to get rid of corruption, countinuous work toward higher environmental standards and greater internal opportunities for their middle class.
So, I don’t see how a failure to pass CAFTA will trigger a spiral toward communism.
First of all CAFTA has nothing to do with Columbia, that’s a Central American Free Trade agreement.
What we are talking about is a bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia that the Dems have been playing politics with and stonewalling because they can’t stand to see a strong pro-American government in Latin America. I know you aren’t willing to recognize it but a lot of your Democrat and liberal colleagues really DON’T love America. At least not in its present state where individual liberties trump the “good of all”.
Secondly, the U.S. reneged on a promise to sell Batista arms in 1958. Now Batista could have bought arms anywhere in the world he wanted in did in fact buy the arms he wanted in other countries BUT the message was sent. The U.S. was no longer backing Batista. Even though that wasn’t the intent of the message, public opinion in Cuba turned. The clock had started on Batista’s tenure and his flight became inevitable.
The signals you send your allies and your enemies ARE HUGELY important.
Legislators vote based on the needs of their constituents and on the greater common good of the country (Burkean principle), not on the well-being of other nations.
Many times the needs of the constituents conflict with the greater good of the country. For example having protective tariffs may help some people in some state but we all end up paying more for goods than the market would normally dictate.
But the Democrat opposition to the Colombian deal has more to do with Bush Derangement Syndrome and trying to deny him any political victory.
Sorry kid. That’s the way it is.
“Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted against NAFTA. Does this mean they were in favor of communism in Canada and Mexico?”
No, but Canada and Mexico don’t have countries on their borders sponsoring Commie terrorists in Mexico and Canada that are seeking to overthrow the Canadian and Mexican governments, or countries on their borders threatening them with war.
That’s the material point you seem to be willfully missing over and over again. Being for or against a given free trade agreement isn’t the issue — folks within the GOP frequently disagree on free trade. The point is that, as Henry says, it’s about signals sent by a superpower to an ally that is increasingly under siege by its enemies, and even more importantly, the same signal being sent to said enemies that encourages them by telling them that said superpower doesn’t really give a damn when push comes to shove.
The signal is amplified that much more, like the Bat Signal, when the people sending it, like Christopher Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, et al, are known to be sympathetic to Castro and Chavez and just generally to all things so strangely anti-American.
“My belief is that we should give countries economic incentives to enter into, and maintain, these kinds of special agreements with the United States. These incentives should include greater trade and priviledges contingent upon things like political reforms in their countries to get rid of corruption, countinuous work toward higher environmental standards and greater internal opportunities for their middle class.”
The incentives shouldn’t be phony ones whipped up by Big Labor and Big Environment that are deliberately designed to be impossible for any country to meet (e.g., we haven’t even gotten rid of corruption HERE) just so BL and BE and the members of Congress who represent them can have cover to pretend they were serious about hammering out a treaty.
Is Uribe really such a tyrant and is Colombia really not the “vibrant free market society” you just said it is that we should be putting the screws to them on a trade agreement while patting Chavez on the back as Pelosi/Dodd have done and want to do? (Remember Dodd and the PR coup he gave Chavez by letting him sell heating oil at a discount for the New England states in last winter?) Colombia is under siege by FARC and narc terrorists while the New Castro supporting them metastasizes on their border — can’t we give them some kind of a break on a bilateral agreement? How perfect does Colombia have to be before we’re allowed to act like we prefer Colombia to Chavez?
Henry,
– Pardon the “CAFTA” acronym mistake. I was abbreviating in my head “Colombian/American…”
– The Batista 58 comparison with what’s going on now is quite a stretch.
—-
Zhangliqun,
I’m not saying that we should not have a free trade agreement with Colombia. Generally, I am in favor of these kinds of things. However, I feel they need to be executed/maintained and incentivized better.
What I’m saying is that just because one is not in favor of it, doesn’t make them a Chavista. That’s all.
Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it.
Yeah Henry,
But I don’t think that Cuba had a “free trade” issue.
What brought about Fidel were 1. Fidel’s very own malice and (possibly tied) 2. Batista’s incompetence and failure of leadership.
From what I can tell, extremist dictators in Latin America usually come after periods of corruption and disenfranchisement of the people.
That’s why I firmly believe that the United States should tie their trade agreements with economic incentives that are contingent upon Latin American nations taking steps toward passing strong national ethics reforms, allowing for unsensored government “watchdog” groups and greater government transperancy.
We just found out now that LA FARC was giving $$$ to Correa in Ecuador. Latin America should take steps toward making records of campaign contributions public.
It’s not strictly about free trade, I thought I made that abundantly clear. I am writing in English. Colombia has made great strides but don’t be fooled, there are powerful forces that want to take Uribe out of circulation and erase the gains that have been made. Do you know what Colombia was like before he was elected?
It’s about give aid and support for our allies, not equivocating.
There has never been a period in Latin America where there hasn’t been corruption and disenfranchisement.
I never said fidel came to power strictly because of the U.S. but the truth is that an expected policy decision was reneged on and it demonstrated that Batista no longer had the backing of the U.S. That emboldened fidel and more importantly changed the psyche of the Cuban people. No leader of Cuba had ever survived losing U.S. support.
We’re often lamenting the unintended consequences of liberal ideology. Well there comes a time when you have to question whether they are unintended or not.
Do you honestly think people like Correa and Chavez are going to abide by a campaign finance law? C’mon bro.
No, but with greater transparency in governments, people like Chavez and Correa can become more rare.
I also think we need to think about free trade in “bigger picture” terms and expand micro-financing and venture capital opportunities to American businesses that want to invest in Latin America’s growing industries and middle-class.
Henry, I understand your argument that it’s not just about free trade. There is symbolism too. But, there are numerous other ways to show solidarity with a government than entering a free-trade agreement (which I ulitmately believe the US should adopt with even more Latin American states).
I also don’t see “liberal consequences” like the ones you describe. Clearly, trade and family restrictions aren’t “conservative.”
I’m pretty cynical. I think that policy toward Cuba has always been a disaster – both under GOP and Dem administrations.
Free trade is not strictly a partisan or ideological issue. Unfortunately populists on both sides of the aisle embrace protectionism. But if there’s any doubt about where conservative thought leader stand on the issue you should check the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/