There are lots of things he doesn't like about CAFTA, he says in a nutshell, but it's nowhere near as bad as NAFTA, WTO or FTAA, he assures us. Besides, it'll deal a blow against those pesky Central American commies... right?. It's bad alright... but really not all that bad, he explains. He doesn't explain, of course his, and our US gummint's slavish support of Red China.
Before I go on to linking today's Rob Bishop commentary, however, I want to make note that The Std-Ex yesterday published a Lisa Roskelley report which elaborates on Rep. Bishops role in the House vote. Ms. Roskelley's article "frames" the CAFTA vote story nicely, I think, and sheds some interesting light on what happened on the House floor early Thursday morning. I'll incorporate some of her story here:
In a crucial House of Representatives vote early Thursday morning, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, appeared in the yea column despite earlier opposition to the Central America Free Trade Agreement.
Bishop's affirmative vote gave the president's top trade priority the ability to pass 217-215.
"This is a referendum on our foreign policy more than it is on our free trade," Bishop said in a prepared statement Thursday.
Bishop was joined with a yea vote by his Utah House colleagues, representatives Chris Cannon, also a Republican, and Democrat Jim Matheson.
The two-page statement outlined Bishop's concerns about the trade agreement and his belief that the agreement is also a fight against communism in Central America controlled by Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
"No other potential trade agreement will have an anti-communist component," he said.
Bishop compared this agreement with others from the past -- he voted against the World Trade Organization and the Australia Trade Agreement -- and those in the future: "I also see no reason to support (Free Trade Area of the Americas)."
However, Bishop said CAFTA is a way for the United States to develop "inter-governmental cooperation."
His swing vote could be seen as part of the massive White House lobbying effort to get the legislation passed, but Bishop's chief of staff Scott Parker said that wasn't the case.
"There was lobbying from a number of groups: the White House, business, constituents (and) people representing those countries," Parker said, "but he just found the foreign policy part of the issue more compelling. Rob usually doesn't react too well to that kind of lobbying."
The executive branch has been said to be offering both threats and bribes for affirmative votes.
"He's shown in the past that he votes his conscience even when it means bucking leadership and the White House," Parker said of Bishop. "He's done it before and he'll do it again."
Many conservative Utahs had high hopes on this issue for Rep. Bishop, who's demonstrated a bit of a "maverick" streak of late. He'd already declared his opposition to CAFTA, before suddenly "pulling" his complete 180-degree turnaround. It appears however that the "lobbying pressure" may have been a little too much for the iconoclastic Rep. Bishop this time around, despite what his spokesman, Mr. Parker says. Hopefully Rep. Bishop will recover his maverick principles and get back to bucking leadership and honoring his conscience some time soon though, on other bills where the lobbying pressure isn't so intense as it was Thurday morning. Traditional conservatives of Utah certainly wish Rep. Bishop's conscience a full and speedy recovery.
You can read today's Rob Bishop "explanation" here. It really is quite "special," as the Std-Ex headline says.
The Salt lake Tribune Published a lucid editorial on the subject of CAFTA in yesterdays edition; and for something a little more "jagged," don't miss Billmon's general background blog commentary here.
Comments, gentle readers?
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
Update 8/01/05 2:14 p.m. MT: Jay Ivensen sounded off on this subject yesterday in a Deseret News editorial here.
