CAFTA AGAIN
Pat proves again why he is the best columnist in the nation
Well, something is slouching toward Washington to be born, all right. But it does not appear to be a free trade majority. Here is how the alarmed editorialists of the Financial Times described what went down in the CAFTA vote Wednesday night on the Hill.Again and again and again we re-iterate how much we oppose CAFTA.
"The White House and the Republican leadership had to resort to every trick in the book to get the bill passed. Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney ... worked the Republican caucus in person. House leaders cut side-deals and loaded pork on the highways and energy bills. With the free trade cause alone insufficient to carry a majority, the bill's sponsors talked national security: the need to protect fragile democracies against the leftist populism of Hugh Chavez and Fidel Castro."
Concluded the FT, "The narrow margins and the intensely partisan vote are matters of serious concern."
You got that right, fellas.-Pat Buchanan
The Journal seems to be awakening to the revolution even as it cannot understand the causes. On Monday, it wrote: "The political recriminations from the cliff-hanger passage of [CAFTA] are even worse than we thought. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is contemplating revenge against the 15 Democrats ..."
The editorial then bugled the cavalry, "We trust the business community will appreciate that Democrats who break with their party's new liberal isolationism deserve support."
What the Journal is doing here is congratulating Democrats for selling out their constituents and signaling its corporate chums to reward them for the betrayal with campaign cash from the political war chests of the Business Roundtable, Fortune 500 and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Journal is calling for corporate payoffs for the Democratic turncoats. - Pat Buchanan
Pat doesn't let up either.
The free-trade True Believers need to ask themselves why they are losing Congress when they have all the king's horses and all the king's men behind them: The New York Times and Washington Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, the Heritage Foundation, Cato and Brookings, National Review and the New Republic, Congress and the White House, and most of the corporate lobbyists and big campaign contributors.
Answer: The free-traders are losing Congress because they have lost the country. Every community has now seen factories shut and jobs shipped overseas. Working men and women know their wages are barely keeping up with inflation. They worry about their country's dependency on foreign goods and foreign money. They all now have friends who have lost jobs to outsourcing. Pat Buchanan
If the New Republic is for it than who can be against it?
Who will take up the cause of economic nationalism? Pat Buchanan has
been the most effective spokesman for it over the past decade by being
so good on television for years. Everyone who meets him testifies to
his genial nature - and this is probably a big reason why this Great
Reactionary stays on the Sunday morning talk shows and on MSNBC. I must
also mention that his column prose is superb. He has been at this on
and off for over forty years since his days in St. Louis.
Is Sherrod Brown the man for the job? Perhaps the labor shakeup will occasion a new economic populism.
Posted on 8/3/2005 12:01 PM
by
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
Post a Comment
|
1 Reference
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
Post a Comment
|
1 Reference
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Source: The PhoneBooth RevolutionTwo years ago, our tireless troubadour of globalism, the Wall Street Journal, was beside itself with giddiness and excitement.
Reader Comments