December 3, 2006


Democrats and trade (Seattle Times, 12/03/06)

Democrats in Washington, D.C., are arguing among themselves about trade: whether to pile new qualifications and restrictions on it, or not. We believe that it is in the interest of the country, and particularly of this state, which has the highest foreign trade per capita of any state, that efforts continue to open markets and lower barriers to commerce.

Which is why it's in the best interest of WA to elect Republicans to Congress.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 3, 2006 3:01 PM
Which is why it's in the best interest of WA to elect Republicans to Congress
No kidding, but our chances of doing much of that any time soon look pretty dismal. Ever looked as the margins Norm Dicks is winning by? Of course, he's fairly middle-of-the-road for a D*, but Baghdad Jim wins by even higher amounts.

*Full disclosure: even I ended up contributing to his margin last time around: his Republican sacrificial-lamb opponent was an ranting antiwar nutcase...

Posted by: Kirk Parker at December 3, 2006 5:06 PM

In terms of real potential damage by (and to) Democrats, anti-trade could wreak more havoc than higher taxes or a flaccid security policy.

Posted by: Gideon at December 3, 2006 6:09 PM

It's been talked about since I moved here in '94 how this state sends people to Congress who vote against the state's economic and trade interests because the Party line tells them to. It could be worse: we almost sent a piable nobody named Darcy Burner, a fully funded subsidiary of Baghdad Jim McDermott, to Congress as another such rubberstamp.

And how typical of the local press to point out, now, when it matters least, how voting Dem might not really be in our best interests.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 3, 2006 6:32 PM

Think Bernanke's worried about inflation now... just wait.

Posted by: Genecis at December 4, 2006 5:15 PM