Which Kerry?

[thebin]

From what I can tell from Kerry, the candidate, the man is against the the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, and the second war in Iraq. What about Kerry the Senator? He voted in favor of each of these issues in the Senate. Is the man responsible for any of the actions he supported as a member of the Senate? (If I were a Democrat, I would be downright embarassed that there are still Dems against free trade- how did the DLC lose control of the party?)

[jerseyhoya34]

Bin, I think he takes a "mend it, don't end it" approach to those particular issues. With No Child Left Behind, he is concerned about the funding shortfalls and other things (perhaps the different testing requirements, but not sure there). so he wants to revisit the original act and make changes. Ditto with the Patriot Act. Ditto with NAFTA (with the environmental standards). Ditto with Iraq (bringing in the UN etc.).

What he recognizes is that each of these bills, on balance, was a well-intentioned effort. NAFTA wasn't bad. Holding Saddam accountable wasn't bad. So, using good judgment, he voted for all of them, which are votes that I agree with.

However, as has become clear, implementation of each of these things (NAFTA, Patriot Act, etc.) has become problematic (in the eyes of Kerry), so, doing the reasonable thing, he will make revisions to each law/act/agreement in a way that serves our national interests.

Just because there is something bad about them or something that hasn't worked out does not mean that he will just walk away from the table and throw out the good work of governments and knowledgeable people, as President Bush did with Kyoto, the UN, etc. It is a different style of leadership than the current President offers, for better or for worse. With Kerry, things are not simply yes or no because, in his eyes (and mine), politics and policy are not about yes or no endeavors or ideological/political rigidity. Policy is about making sense of the world and the country, and that is what Kerry offers.

[thebin]

you have fallen into the trap of thinking Bush had anything to do with Kyoto's death. If Bush kiilled Kyoto, I killed JFK. The treaty could not garner a single vote in the Senate- who by law ratiifies such treaties. I immediately lose respect for anyone who tries to associate Kyoto's non-implementaion with Bush.

There is nothing wrong with NAFTA in either practrice or theory. Being against free trade is simply idiotic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age. It is plain pandering to the treade union element of the Dem party. Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live skit when Steve Martin played a midevil doctor....What you need is a good bleeding/restrictive trade policy. Bush has not been a champion of free trade as I wish he were, but compared to Kerry's ancient stand, he has been.

[showcase]

The treaty could not garner a single vote in the Senate

Link?

My recollection was that Bush withdrew from the treaty after Clinton signed on - so I think it's perfectly fair to put Kyoto on Bush. Heck, even if Bush's move effectively prevented the Senate from having to vote on it, he still pre-empted such a vote. If the Senate was really going to vote against it 100-0, he should have just passed the buck.

[thebin]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/climate/stories/clim121197b.htm

The Senate voted 95-0 in a sort of pre-emptive resolution to inform Clinton that they would not consider a Kyoto-like treaty that would harm the US economy and would leave developing economies different standards or leave other nations out entirely. It was quite clear they were saying No to Kyoto as they knew it, but Clinton acted like a child and pretended he didn't hear them and put his name to it anyway almost cetainly for the same reasons he did almost anything in the last couple of years of his term- to shape his "legacy" despite the fact that he knew it was a dead deal from the word go. I have never even seen a prominent Democrat dispute the notion that Kyoto would have arrived on the senate floor DOA.

This is flimsy logic showcase to put this on Bush- and reveals that you are being less than sincere IMO if you know the poltical realities of Kyoto. It was a foolish piece of political international vanity that Clinton even moved on the thing at the end of his term when he KNEW, with CERTAINTY, that the Senate would NEVER ratify it. Bush merely did the adult thing and moved the dead carcass off the road. Or if you would prefer a different clumsy animal metaphor- he put a dying animal out of its misery. And you want to say he murdered it. There was not a single senator who voiced any interest in singing on to a treaty that would have had truly catastrophic consequences on our national economy- not one. It is simply disengenous for you to even suggest that the Senate might have ratified that treaty.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

you have fallen into the trap of thinking Bush had anything to do with Kyoto's death. If Bush kiilled Kyoto, I killed JFK. The treaty could not garner a single vote in the Senate- who by law ratiifies such treaties. I immediately lose respect for anyone who tries to associate Kyoto's non-implementaion with Bush.

There is nothing wrong with NAFTA in either practrice or theory. Being against free trade is simply idiotic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age. It is plain pandering to the treade union element of the Dem party. Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live skit when Steve Martin played a midevil doctor....What you need is a good bleeding/restrictive trade policy. Bush has not been a champion of free trade as I wish he were, but compared to Kerry's ancient stand, he has been.

Bush basically walked out on Kyoto and had every opportunity to use his leadership to explain to the world how it needed to be remedied so that the US could sign on with 2/3 of the Senate's approval. Kyoto was a culmination of almost 30 years of work of several countries, and I find it bad politics to walk away from it without trying to save it.

As for the point on NAFTA, I agree with you that it is, on balance, a very good document and even, on balance, good for the US economy. That said, however, it does contribute directly to the outflow of low-skilled jobs.

You and I don't see that because we both live on the east coast in more metropolitan/suburban areas that have latched on to the global economy. However, what about Pittsburgh? The old textile cities in Massachusetts? Undoubtedly, we're not going to bring those cities back to what they once were, but there needs to be an effort to move them and those like them forward. So, my partial solution would be to offer more job retraining so as to convert the former manufacturing employment into low-skilled service employment. I think Kerry also has good ideas when saying he will remove tax loopholes for those who move offshore (and bring low-skilled jobs with them).

As for the international trade aspect, this idea of fair trade is a bit utopian because, so far as I can tell, we have comparative advantage on the side of capital and most in NAFTA have comparative advantage in labor, so evening the playing field would reduce the incentives for trade.

That said, however, I am concerned with the implications of these agreements on the environment (and to be blunt, I am less concerned about labor standards). Especially with respect to Mexico, we cannot afford to permit such high levels of pollution that result from our trade because pollution is truly a transnational phenomenon. One man's pollution is another man's pollution. If you are talking CO2 emissions, they can easily move northwards and so on and so forth. At some point, we, as a country, are going to have to come to terms with the fact that we cannot pollute this country or this planet to the extent that we do (this is my personal belief, and I recognize that many disagree). And, I think we should go about that business sooner rather than later.

That said, trying to improve the environmental standards is a source of high-skilled service-oriented jobs. The development, implementation, and monitoring of carbon filters on smokestacks etc. requires certain expertise. I could go on in more detail about this, but I think this country can benefit from implementing environmental standards domestically and encouraging such standards in trade. Again, the labor standards are dubious in my estimation, as beneficial as they would be from a moral/human rights standpoint.

[showcase]

The Senate voted 95-0 in a sort of pre-emptive resolution to inform Clinton that they would not consider a Kyoto-like treaty that would harm the US economy and would leave developing economies different standards or leave other nations out entirely.

I have never even seen a prominent Democrat dispute the notion that Kyoto would have arrived on the senate floor DOA.

This is flimsy logic showcase to put this on Bush- and revelas that you are being less than sincere IMO if you know the poltical realities of Kyoto.

Oh please; assuming Kyoto was DoA, then why not let the Senate be seen as the one that killed it? As I see it, Bush WANTED credit for doing it - doing so was 'bold' and 'Presidential,' provided an emotional pay-off to the base that supported him in the election, and fostered the impression that he was, um, being 'adult.' The only other explanation would be that Bush worried that the Senate might not stick by it's non-binding resolution, and he didn't want to chance it.

As you reap so shall you sow. You might not have heard any prominent Democrat dispute the notion that Kyoto would have arrived on the Senate floor DOA (although they would have done so when? - I honestly can't think of a lot of opportunities for them to weigh in with these opinions), but I haven't heard the Administration arguing that he was unfarily maligned by the label "Kyoto Killer."

[thebin]

Which is it.....

1. You thought there was a reasonable chance that the Senate was going to undergo the biggest collective change of heart in the history of legislative bodies, and ratify by 2/3rds from an earlier 95-0 no?.....

or...

2. You admit Kyoto had no chance, but wish the Senate had wasted their time killing it rather than Bush doing it for them? Then you would have this boogeyman buzzword to toss around while pretending Bush's opinion on this matter was the deciding factor.

[showcase]

What I (or you) think might have occured hypothetically is irrelevant to whether it is unfair to assign Kyoto's death to the Bush Administration.

you have fallen into the trap of thinking Bush had anything to do with Kyoto's death. If Bush kiilled Kyoto, I killed JFK.

If I'm contemplating killing someone, but you shoot him first (with intent, etc.), I'm not responsible for his murder - you are.

It's a matter of public perception (rather than your or my perceived ultimate responsibility), and it appears under the circumstances that this is exactly what Bush wanted.

You thought there was a reasonable chance that the Senate was going to undergo the biggest collective change of heart in the history of legislative bodies, and ratify by 2/3rds from an earlier 95-0 no?

Oh yeah; politicians are paragons of consistency. Maybe Bush wanted to avoid the possibility that a "no" vote that was nevertheless a marked departure from 0-95 would create an impetus that would force him to reopen negotiations on this issue (something that is completely anathema to him)? Is this potential third outcome (beyond simply an up or down vote and the end of the story) really so unthinkable?

So which is it: were you on the grassy knoll or weren't you?






...and with that, I am now All-Big East. FEAR MY WRATH!!!