Comments on: Garcia Cons Rangel on Peru Trade Deal

By: mick

mick — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:07:34 +0000

No, that already exists around the Colombian and South Korean deals, and there isn’t so much as a hint it’s going to happen or even that anyone is considering it because the leadership has clamped down.

What you need is a pool willing to revolt, and again, there’s no sign of that.

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:58:17 +0000

You don’t even necessarily need a majority or the leaders on this one, you just need to pool a big enough caucus to filibuster.

By: mick

mick — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:50:28 +0000

I don't know. It's an interesting idea. Given the way he's positioning his campaign, I should think it would be a natural fit. Don't know how much good it would actually do. As Sirota points out in another context, the Democrats are pushing the "we can't do anything about it" strategy even when it's an obvious crock.

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:32:18 +0000

Now here’s a thought. Outside of Bushian Scandal, the focal point of politics is the presidential elections. Personally, I’m not an Edwards supporter, but given the fact that he seems determined to woo the old Labor bloc, would there be a way to try and get him on it?

This would be a win-win in my opinion, unless he too is supportive of the measure, then we’re at a loss. But him taking the issue on could result in bolstering his pro-labor bonafides among the electorate he is trying to court, while at the same time giving more visibility to something that leadership on both sides of the fence and the White House would like to see kept swept under the rug.