AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
"I am flat-out, completely, horizontally opposed to CAFTA." So declared Rep. Robin Hayes on July 25 (as quoted by The Charlotte Observer), in what appeared to be a set-in-concrete reconfirmation of his unalterable opposition to the controversial Central American Free Trade Agreement. Two days later, in a fierce, high-stakes floor battle in the House, Hayes did indeed vote against CAFTA--before flip-flopping and changing his "nay" vote to "yea."
His vote provided a key "yea" that gave CAFTA a razor-thin 217-215 victory. Hayes claims that he received last-minute concessions from President Bush that will protect his constituents.
It is an empty promise, of course. Even if the administration follows through on its promised efforts (which past experience shows is unlikely), the likelihood that Congress and the other countries that are parties to the agreement would approve his desired changes is virtually nil.
Why the Pressure Tactics?
The Robin Hayes vote flip-flop was just one of many episodes that demonstrate the high stakes involved in the battle over CAFTA. There are many similar stories demonstrating the incredible lengths to which the White House and the GOP leadership went to bribe, browbeat, and cajole Republicans (and 15 Democrats) into the CAFTA camp.
Reporting on the CAFTA battle, The Hill (an important daily newspaper that focuses on political dealings in the Capitol) noted that the trade pact "was so controversial that Republicans last year opted to delay a vote until after the November elections. The White House then tabled CAFTA in the first months of this year to focus on Social Security."
When the administration did turn its attention to CAFTA, it didn't hold back.
Source: HighBeam Research, CAFTA accountability: politicians who barter away U.S. sovereignty...