The Seattle Times editorial board weighs in today on the languishing free trade deal with Colombia, lamenting in part the positioning of our state's six Democratic U.S. Representatives. Meanwhile, the now regular drumbeat of MSM editorial board opinion against House Democrats, particularly Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team, continues as the New York Times and LA Times opine in favor of the deal and against Democratic obstructionism.
Notable in this whole affair is the now ubiquitous conflict between the Democratic position and traditionally sympathetic MSM editorial boards. It should be a reasonable standing rule in modern politics that the gig is up when a Democratic majority is consistently coming under fire from the left-of-center denizens of traditional journalistic opinion.
Accordingly, this issue could prove to be a turning point in the view taken by a significant portion of the MSM toward the Democratic majority. Obstinance on Iraq and attempts to defund the war effort are one thing. Picking a fight with an opposing Administration on the budget is another. Yet, at a certain point majorities are expected to govern, or at least try to. The idealistic strain of MSM editorial board thought - and the American people to a differing degree - expect as much.
This current, steady stream of editorial condemnation is not only in opposition to Democratic action, it is calling out the naked partisanship and interest-group fealty of Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats. Just like John McCain can't lose his temper in public, Hillary Clinton can't pull another Tuzla, and Barack Obama can't paint himself into the corner as a condescending urban liberal (oops!), Democrats in Congress must now be exceptionally wary of looking like political hacks rather than a governing majority. Else they're likely to be called on it quite publicly - and not just by Republicans.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 12, 2008 03:16 PM | Email ThisIt couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 03:39 PMSuch BS
Posted by: GS on April 12, 2008 06:09 PMPretty please, with sugar on top?
Posted by: tensor on April 12, 2008 06:21 PMI think those of us on both sides are guilty of spewing garbage at times but how does "having Sherrif Rubber Stamp Dubya's Presidentin' ramble incoherently around Teh Izzuz would ensure her (re)-election." add to meaningful dialogue?
It doesn't, of course, and you end up looking like a ranting fool.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 06:32 PMI think Eric is right to point out that congressional Democrats run the risk of looking like the political hacks they are.
It's really too early in this election year to sense a trend but I think the tide of public opinion may be turning against liberal Democrats. As Tensor and other leftist posters here demonstrate regularly the left has nothing of real substance to offer other than regurgitating the same tired talking points over and over.
Once it dawns on folks that liberalism is an utter failure and a fraud the game will be up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 13, 2008 06:46 AMOne thing about this trade deal that was mentioned on NRO is the fact that the House canned the 90 day fast track for an up or down vote on trade agreements and the impact that it will have on negotiations in the future.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 13, 2008 06:57 AM"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that,"
Pathetic, but so revealing of the man's character, or lack therof.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 13, 2008 09:02 AMLabor leaders have been murdered across Colombia. We still don't know the extent, if any, of the government's involvement with such atrocities. Why should such a government get preferential treatment from us?
Posted by: tensor on April 13, 2008 10:53 AMYou did touch on one point which Mr. Reichert has never explained. There was no solid evidence linking Gary Ridgway to most of the murders to which he, in the interest of sparing his own life, confessed. During the long series of murders, one theory claimed there was actually more than one person doing the killing. If this theory is correct, then Mr. Reichert allowed a murderer to go free. (And in the interest of ending the case, not for the victims' families. Please.)
Back to topic, please answer my question about the Columbian international law violations.
Posted by: katomar on April 13, 2008 11:32 AMI mentioned their illegal border incursion.
Hard evidence links Ridgway to seven of the Green River murders. Only his confession, made under a deal to spare his life, connects him to the dozens of others. (American jurisprudence is very wary of confessions, and rightly so. Reliance on confession has never been a major part of our law enforcement.) Declaring the cases closed by confession was a really bad move, done more for the interest of Reichert than anyone else. "I caught the Green River killer" might very well be a false statement simply because of the "the".
Posted by: tensor on April 13, 2008 11:48 AMIt would be refreshing to see tensor indicate just what Darcy Burner would do in office that makes her a superior candidate.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 13, 2008 12:03 PM(Of course not. Criminals never work in groups, only alone.) If you assume there was "the" Green River Killer, then it has to be Ridgway. Absent that assumption, we can't claim the cases were solved.
My point in this is not to deny the Reichert was part of a large team, which ultimately proved that Ridgway killed seven women, and had knowledge of the murders of other women. (Having such knowledge does not necessarily make Ridgway the killer in those cases.) But Rep. Reichert does not make that statement. He goes around, claiming to have caught the Green River Killer. That's a much larger statement, and very questionable. Someone who makes a sweeping statement about a complex problem has little credibility when addressing other complex problems, such as international trade.
If we want to help Colombia with a drug-and-murder problem, the very best thing to do is end our policy of making certain drugs extremely profitable. (Treating our own citizens' substance-abuse problems as a medical issue, not a criminal issue, would help us here at home, too.) There's much, much more to this issue, of course, but that would be a good start.
This entire post rests on the assumption that Colombia should have this trade deal. Make that case.
Posted by: tensor on April 13, 2008 01:04 PM(Of course not. Criminals never work in groups, only alone.) If you assume there was "the" Green River Killer, then it has to be Ridgway. Absent that assumption, we can't claim the cases were solved.
My point in this is not to deny the Reichert was part of a large team, which ultimately proved that Ridgway killed seven women, and had knowledge of the murders of other women. (Having such knowledge does not necessarily make Ridgway the killer in those cases.) But Rep. Reichert does not make that statement. He goes around, claiming to have caught the Green River Killer. That's a much larger statement, and very questionable. Someone who makes a sweeping statement about a complex problem has little credibility when addressing other complex problems, such as international trade.
If we want to help Colombia with a drug-and-murder problem, the very best thing to do is end our policy of making certain drugs extremely profitable. (Treating our own citizens' substance-abuse problems as a medical issue, not a criminal issue, would help us here at home, too.) There's much, much more to this issue, of course, but that would be a good start.
This entire post rests on the assumption that Colombia should have this trade deal. Make that case.
Posted by: tensor on April 13, 2008 01:04 PMSo you're saying our invasion of Afghanistan was illegal? Because that is exactly what we did, but on a much grander scale.
Posted by: Mike H on April 13, 2008 03:00 PMTo topic is about Columbia. It needs a trade agreement. It is good.
Not really. This trade agreement is estimated to actually lower Colombia's GDP. It is more about reinforcing a military alliance.
THis is a treaty that costs the US nothing. ANd opens doors for exports. Why is this bad? I guess because they help us in the War on Drugs.
No, but you're on the right track. America's drug war is incredibly unpopular in that region, and Colombia is becoming more and more isolated because of it. This treaty has the dual problems of furthering that isolation, while also weakening support within Colombia for the government that we have such good relations with.
This post here is also worth checking out for understanding the trends in violence in Colombia and understanding why it's not necessarily true that Colombia's human rights record is improving. In fact, the second graph there shows that in recent years, the number of international humanitarian law violations by the Colombian government has surpassed both FARC and the pro-government paramilitaries.
I've never opposed a free-trade agreement, and never thought there were good reasons to do so. But for a number of reasons, this is a bad deal. Not for how it affects us (it doesn't hurt our economy at all), but for how it isolates our allies and will ultimately strengthen Hugo Chavez.
Posted by: thehim on April 13, 2008 10:34 PMhttp://www.cipcol.org/?p=580
Yet, the Democrats troop over to Hamas, Venezuela and Cuba and trumpet the need for free trade with them.
Gotta love it.
Posted by: swatter on April 14, 2008 08:48 AMI think the issue is:
1) President Bush wants fast-track this agreement and didn't go through the "traditional channels"
2) It's an election year stunt for the Dem's to appeal to unions.
3) It's really a non-issue and is likely to pass in the end. I don't think Columbia is going to suffer all that much if this agreement takes 6 months vs. 1 month to pass.
Bad message to Columbia and the rest of the USA and our allies, and good message to Hamas, Iraq, Venezuela and Cuba are reasons it is a big issue.
Posted by: swatter on April 14, 2008 10:34 AMI think they're adults, I don't see how rubber stamping this bill makes a real economic difference.
Bad message to Columbia and the rest of the USA and our allies, and good message to Hamas, Iraq, Venezuela and Cuba are reasons it is a big issue.
While I agree it makes Columbia look a little bad but as 'thehim' pointed out the people there don't really care for us all that much.
Hammas? We don't trade with people who don't recognize Israel.
Cuba? Maybe they could benefit from free-trade, might finally bring about the Democratic revolution (now that Fidel is out). 40 years of isolation by the US really haven't done much. If anything it has only made Cuba a major vacation for our allies (Japan, Europe). We already have free-trade with China, Vietnam, and other openly Communist countries.
I think you are making this trade bill out to be some sort of global message which it's not. If the President had approached Congress on the trade bill by working together would we have this issue? No, it's just another BS election year partisan political distraction that's relatively meaningless in the end since the bill will pass in 3-6mo anyway.