Thread: Pelosi questions Republican tactics in CAFTA win IT AINT OVE

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Pelosi questions Republican tactics in CAFTA win
IT AINT OVER YET

Reuters
Thursday, July 28, 2005; 5:22 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives' top Democrat accused Republicans on Thursday of possibly illegal action to encourage some Democrats to vote for a free-trade pact with Central America.

The House voted 217-215 in favor of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, early on Thursday morning, with 15 Democrats joining 202 Republicans in support.


At a briefing hours later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, complained that deals offered by House Republicans to win CAFTA made the House seem like the "set of 'Let's Make a Deal,"' referring to a TV game show.

Some Democrats were made offers that they said they didn't think "passed legal muster," Pelosi told reporters.

She refused to provide any details of who was involved and what was offered that might have been illegal. She also said the deals were hard to prove because they weren't consummated.

But "those who have more knowledge" and were directly involved might file a complaint with the House's ethics committee, Pelosi said.

The offers went beyond the normal horse-trading that occurs in Congress, Pelosi said, comparing it to what occurred on the House floor during a Medicare prescription drug bill vote.

The House's ethics committee admonished House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, last year for having offered to endorse the son of a fellow Republican if the lawmaker voted for the prescription drug legislation.

The lawmaker, Rep. Nick Smith of Michigan, ended up voting against the bill, and his son lost a congressional primary.

House Republicans denied Pelosi's accusation.

"Nancy Pelosi's wheels have come off the track. The sheer lunacy of her comments is an indication of just how far out of the mainstream she has led her party and her caucus in the House," said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for DeLay.

Meanwhile, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican responsible for rounding up party votes in the House, told reporters "it didn't hurt" that Congress was putting the finishing touches on a federal highway bill at the same time that the House was voting on CAFTA.

"It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility" that lawmakers would tie their votes on CAFTA to getting certain projects in the highway bill, Blunt said.

"But we don't do near as much of that as people think," he added.

The Senate approved CAFTA last month 54-45. But it has to vote again because the U.S. Constitution requires bills affecting government revenues to begin in the House.

Senate supporters hope opponents will agree to final approval without further debate. That would send the bill to President Bush for his signature.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he did not anticipate any problems getting Senate approval again. Senate aides said they hoped that could be done before August.

It's not over yet....

I hope the Dems can find illegalities. I wish we would bring a class action lawsuit against NAFTA and by the way CAFTA...we shouldn't have any problem finding attorneys who would take the case on contingency seeing that there would be some MONEY involved.

What do you think??

RR

Y'all, excuse me...but doggone it I am fighting mad...I want to HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS

I am all for it RR.

ALSO they have to vote again on it in the senate. I wonder if it can still be defeated???

Well.....who are the 6 we could get to switch....BURR I THINK IS ONE RIGHT HERE IN NC. He's young, would like a Long Future, eh? LIZZIE? Worth a try, she might not want to spend her last term in government service going down as a TRAITOR!!

That 2 of the 6. Need 4 more? Democrats perhaps?

Who are our Democrats on ALIPAC? Let us know who we can turn. They had some Democrats moving this along.

GOOD WORK JP!!

I can try to move Kit Bond in Missouri...but he's getting a couple of billion in locks and dams and I'm sure the President bartered highway funds which Missouri needs.

If we could move those 3 and pick up 3 Democrats, then it would die in the Senate.

Let us know JP...who the targets should be.

I would have to look into it, but I am calling all of them.

Originally Posted by Judy

Well.....who are the 6 we could get to switch....BURR I THINK IS ONE RIGHT HERE IN NC. He's young, would like a Long Future, eh? LIZZIE? Worth a try, she might not want to spend her last term in government service going down as a TRAITOR!!

I used to have a great deal of respect for Elizabeth Dole but I wonder lately where her brain has gone! Guess another has fallen under the Bush/Fox umbrella of mind-numbing country-destroying idiotic illogical thinking!

Well, you know the presidunt has promised them everything in the book...but he won't keep those promises...NOW, however, he's gonna have to move on said promises...so why can't the senate do to him what he ordinarily does to THEM...get what they want and then renege on the deal??

RR

Jorge Bush should be investigated for what he and his cronies did on Capital Hill the other day. Their mob mentality to bribe congress officials and buy their votes or else was nothing short of dispicable (and BTW it was illegal). Then again we all know that Jorge and his cronies have no respect for our nation, it's sovereignty or the rule of law so why would having respect for ethnics and morals be any different? Their actions were disgusting and deploreable. Investigate this clown immediately and if found guilty (which he will be if someone has the guts to go out and prove it) then immediately start impeachment proceedings. It would take just one Democrat to do this to get the ball rolling and you know how much the media would eat this up. Crap rolls downhill fast.

Go Dems Go

IMPEACH THIS NATION WRECKING TRAITOR NOW!

this is great news!! I just sent it off to my State Rep., he was real disappointed that every republican in Alabama voted for it.

Senator Sessions voted for it and Shelby voted against it.


beens this whole thing has been questioned, perhaps they can answser why the Senate didn't have to have a 2/3rds votes to pass it beens the President prepared the "treaty" -- also known as the "agreement"