Fair Trade Contingent Now Formidable Opponent

Ron Kirk made some controversial comments affirming that the Obama Administration has no plans to reopen NAFTA, but would look to address labor and environmental concerns outside of the agreement. Whereupon David Sirota's head exploded. Or actually not - he made some side comments about the virtues of campaign promises, but he also stated that "I still hold out hope - based on the White House's rhetoric - that even though Obama is going back on his promise to reopen NAFTA, there will nonetheless be progressive trade policy changes soon." That's kind of interesting, and I think the optimism comes from the set of allies in Washington for progessive trade policy, moving the country in a new direction:

Trade is emerging as a source of friction between President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Trade critics on Capitol Hill are complaining about comments by Ron Kirk, Obama’s trade representative, who on Monday said Obama does not want to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) after all.

“I’m disappointed,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said of Kirk’s comments. “The president needs to understand there is strong opposition to more-of-the-same trade deals.” Freshman Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) also expressed disappointment.

Kay Hagan's opposition in particular is interesting. She has not taken any high-profile stands as a freshman, to my knowledge, and starting with trade means that she considers it an important issue to her constituents. The President will simply be bound by a very large and strong fair-trade component on Capitol Hill. The Colombia and Panama FTAs will offer a testing ground. Here's what Kirk had to say:

Mr. Kirk, who as mayor of Dallas was known as a strong advocate of free trade, also said the administration planned expeditious reviews of pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.

He said that Colombia had made “remarkable progress” in reducing violence — attacks against labor activists have been a key sticking point — but that other issues remained, and he vowed intensive consultation with Congress on the matter.

The Bush administration signed the agreement with Colombia in November 2006. But Congressional Democrats and United States labor groups have said the Uribe government must do more to stop the antilabor violence and hold perpetrators accountable, a position Mr. Obama supported during his campaign.

Regarding Panama, Mr. Kirk said that differences on labor standards, and the question of the country “possibly being a tax haven,” needed resolution.

Certainly, taking these concerns seriously, and putting conditions on these free trade agreements, represents a change in and of itself.

Stay tuned.

The Place For Holder

Continuing on with a look at some of the key figures who will do the important work in Barack Obama's Administration who were introduced at yesterday's press conference, let's focus on Attorney General nominee Eric Holder. It's been interesting to see the split on the left over Holder, who has produced some strong views about closing Guantanamo and restoring the rule of law in recent years, but who has a creeping tendency to respond to power in dangerous ways. I tended to let Holder's involvement in the Marc Rich problem slide, but today's report by Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston suggests that I shouldn't.

Mr. Holder’s supporters portray him as having been a relatively uninvolved bystander caught in a Clinton-era controversy, the remarkable granting of a last-minute pardon by President Bill Clinton to a fugitive from justice. But interviews and an examination of Congressional records show that Mr. Holder, who at the time of the pardon was the deputy attorney general, was more deeply involved in the Rich pardon than his supporters acknowledge.

Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter — a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was “neutral, leaning toward” favorable — helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.

At the same time, Mr. Holder was not the sinister deal maker that his critics made him out to be. He let himself be drawn into the case by politically influential advocates, the review of the case shows, bypassing the usual Justice Department channels for reviewing pardon applications and infuriating prosecutors in New York who had brought the initial charges against Mr. Rich and his business partner.

I think that last paragraph makes Holder look worse. It shows he can be seduced by powerful interests into doing their bidding, which is also the concern with his advocacy for Chiquita Banana in their legal battle over their funding right-wing paramilitaries to kill labor organizers in Colombia.

Holder's recent speeches on the subject of the rule of law are first rate, and I think in general that he stands in the Democratic mainstream. My hope is that he protects the Constitution and enforces the laws of the nation. But actions speak louder than words. And while the Rich pardon is many years in the past, the way in which he acceded to the wishes of the politicially connected must be troubling.

Unless, like Glenn Greenwald, you see this as less of a character flaw and more of a symptom:

This is vintage Washington. This is the filthy, venal sleaze on which both political parties feed. It's what fuels how the Beltway operates. It's the leading cause of why it functions as a corrupt, dysfunctional, bloated, incestuous royal court. That's what Washington is. For that reason, it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected -- or more accurately: who haven't infected themselves -- at one point or another with this disease.

More than anything else, Obama's endless invocation of the "change" mantra was not about promises of sharp ideological or even policy shifts -- as needed as those may be -- but instead, was about changing this core Beltway dynamic, delousing the Washington culture. A consensus has emerged, which I more or less share, that condemning the not-yet-inaugurated Obama presidency based merely on his appointments of establishment re-treads and war supporters is premature, irrational and unfair.

Obama has repeatedly said that his appointees are there to implement and carry out his agenda. There are reasons to believe Obama can and will carry through on his "change" commitments, and there are also ample, reasonable grounds for doubting that he will. Either way, though it's constructive to express views on his high-level appointments, it makes sense to wait to see what Obama himself actually does as President before assessing whether his commitments are illusory [...]

If you're someone who basically thinks that the Washington political system works fine and has been run by the Good, Serious Adults who rule over the rabble for their own good -- in other words, if you're Fred Hiatt or David Ignatius -- it makes perfect sense to celebrate these appointments. For anyone else, skepticism is warranted -- how could it not be? -- and praise and gratitude and celebratory Change parades make sense if and when they're actually warranted by actions. The closer one's proximity has been to the bipartisan Washington establishment, the less entitled they are -- not the more -- to a presumption of Magnanimous, Serious, Adult, Transformative leadership.

I think it is important to raise this skepticism, however, with a degree of balance or what have you, because we have already seen that a proper amount of pressure can actually extract results from the Obama transition. Because of pressure from the left, John Brennan will not be holding a top intelligence post, and in fact nobody associated with Bush's interrogation policies will be acceptable. I think Holder does not quite fit into that category, but there's plenty of reason to voice concern and make sure he is true to his most recent rhetoric.

A Faster 100

GOOD Magazine has an interesting chart encapsuling the first 100 days of every Administration since FDR. What jumps out to me is that these Presidents didn't actually do a heck of a lot in those 100 days. It's a familiar trope of the media that a President must get a lot done in that early period, but it doesn't actually happen very much.

However, in this case there are a number of things Obama is going to be able to get done early in the term, because of two things. One, he's signaled his willingness to reverse lots of Bush-era executive orders. Second, there are lots of bills that were able to pass Congress or nearly break a Republican filibuster in the Senate that, with the expanded majorities in that chamber, could be on Obama's desk within a matter of weeks. Chris Bowers has a list:

Democratic trifecta legislation

H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Withdrawing between 100,000 to 120,000 of the 160,000 American military troops in Iraq.

Webb amendment to HR 1585: To specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Making it easier to join a union.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Another worker's right's bill.

District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act : A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives.

Rush Holt's verified voting bill. A verified paper trail for every vote cast in America.

Specter amendment to HR 1585: To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.

H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Expanding children's health care.

Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act : A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Increasing stem cell research.

Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act. Increased investment in renewable energy.

Harkin amendment to the Farm Bill. Not sure what this is, but it probably will pass when we get six more votes in the Senate.

Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. A centrist global warming bill that doesn't do much to stop global warming, from what I have heard.

I'm not sure all of these will be offered (Lieberman-Warner is probably dead), but most of them will. And compared to the GOOD chart, that's quite a lot to keep busy, checked only by Congress' speed in acting. It's much more preferable if Congress provides input on these issues rather than executive orders, in my view. And supporting a renewable energy standard, allowing bargaining for prescription drugs, expanding SCHIP and funding for stem cell research, Webb's dwell time amendment and many more of these would be significant.

Of course, none of them have much to do with the urgent economic challenges that we're facing right now, which is why Obama yesterday tried to push President Bush to put together a second stimulus and help to automakers (in exchange for their building cleaner cars) during the lame-duck session of Congress. Bush said, "Well, you scratch my back...."

Mr. Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia, a measure for which Mr. Bush has long fought, people familiar with the discussion said.

The Bush administration, which has presided over a major intervention in the financial industry, has balked at allowing the automakers to tap into the $700 billion bailout fund, despite warnings last week that General Motors might not survive the year.

Mr. Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders say the bailout law authorizes the administration to extend assistance.

Mr. Obama went into his post-election meeting with Mr. Bush on Monday primed to urge him to support emergency aid to the auto industry, advisers to Mr. Obama said. But Democrats also indicate that neither Mr. Obama nor Congressional leaders are inclined to concede the Colombia pact to Mr. Bush, and may decide to wait until Mr. Obama assumes power on Jan. 20.

January 20, which isn't all that far away. Does Bush really think he still has any leverage? If the guarantees are ensured publicly the auto industry can probably muddle through until then. It's not preferable to wait a few months, but at the expense of bad policy, it certainly is. But this is of course Obama's problem for expecting a good faith discussion with Bush.

Magnificent Bastard

Here's John McCain saying "BOORRRR-INGGGG" with his eyes over the deaths of Colombian labor leaders:



And here's him making air quotes to deride something so frivolous and mockable as women's health.



The reason John McCain is losing this race has something to do with the fundamentals, but also because he's simply an arrogant asshole. This is why independents are laughing in his face. He's inauthentic, hollow, callous, and believes he should have the Presidency handed to him by divine right. His delusions of grandeur aren't playing well.

He's also a liar, and so are his friends:

Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson attacked The Post's story as "wrong," saying, "Verizon received a request from Mrs. McCain, but declined. Subsequent to that, the Secret Service made a legitimate request for a temporary tower for its work and Verizon complied as is required by our contract with the agency."

However, interviews and public records filed in the development services offices of Yavapai County, Ariz., reveal a different timeline. Getting cell coverage was the culmination of an effort begun in early 2007 by Cindy McCain, when her staff first requested coverage through Verizon's Web site, according to the McCain campaign. After discussing the matter with the company, Mrs. McCain offered land for a permanent cell tower. She gave Verizon authorization to act on her behalf to seek permits from the county. Verizon hired contractors to draw up the plans and Cindy McCain signed a contract in May.

After a regulatory hurdle delayed installation of the permanent tower, Verizon received e-mails from the Secret Service asking about coverage in the area and asking for the process to be rushed. Verizon's contractor then petitioned for a cell site on wheels. It was installed in June.

Erratic. Dishonest. Dishonorable. Dismissive.

John McCain 2008.

It's All In The Timing

Today the Colombian government made a daring rescue of political prisoner Ingrid Betancourt, three Americans and other hostages from the FARC paramilitary group. John McCain just so happened to be in Colombia at the time. He has one senior advisor, Charlie Black, with longstanding ties to the government, having represented Occidental Petroleum (Colombia's top foreign producer of oil and gas) for many years. Another backer, Carl Lindner, recently pleaded guilty to funding a terrorist group inside Colombia, the AUC (the right-wing paramilitaries who have been fighting the left-wing FARC. Colombia is complicated). Terrorist groups are OK when they're right-wing and in South America, you see.

The point is that McCain's camp has connections with the Colombian government. If they could've moved on this rescue mission a week ago, but could also see an opportunity to please their American masters who they get billions in aid from, and help the national security perception of a trusted friend, I don't see why they wouldn't.

Good On Nancy Pelosi

She'll see your forcing a fast-track vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and raise you a blockage.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will change its rules so as to skirt a requirement that it vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi says the House will vote on the rules change policy Thursday, effectively putting off a vote on a free trade agreement that is a key priority of the Bush administration.

"The president took his action. I will take mine tomorrow," Pelosi said.

The best part of this is maybe the Speaker recognizing that she has a hand to play and power to wield, making the unitary executive not all that unitary.

It's ridiculous that we're even having to deal with a free trade agreement at a time when the US economy is falling apart. But this particular free trade agreement, with a country where trade unionists are routinely killed, is particularly offensive. Colombia has a complete disregard for basic worker rights, and rewarding that with access to US markets would be absurd.

But as I said, it's Pelosi standing up for the legitimacy of Congress as a co-equal branch that makes this a heartening development.

Pelosi insisted that the House's right to determine its own procedures overrides any requirements that Congress take up a measure within a prescribed time period.

She said she is interested in taking up the agreement in an atmosphere that is "as unemotional as possible," but "that is not possible if the president of the United States is going to usurp the discretion of the speaker of the House to bring" legislation to the floor.

We all want Congress to act in a more oppositional manner. They're starting to get the message. Reward good behavior.

...asking John Yoo to have a chat works in this regard, too.

UPDATE: Then again, perhaps not. CongressDaily reports:

House Democratic leaders are seriously considering delaying a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement until after the November elections, thereby providing needed cover for vulnerable rank-and-file members, according to senior Democratic leadership sources.

That would be fairly revolting. The situation is fluid...

Penn Still Full Of Ink, Actually

So it looks like rumors of the demise of Mark Penn were greatly exaggerated. He's still sitting in on conference calls, he's still delivering poliing and message, and he's still part of the inner circle in the Clinton campaign. Even campaign spokepersons are acknowledging that he is playing an important role.

Which is fine, of course. But this also means that Penn's actions remain fair game for the rival campaign. He's either an advisor or he isn't, and these events clearly indicate that he is. And so the incident with the Colombian government on the pending free trade agreement, on which George Bush has forced a vote in the Congress, will continue to be a significant part of the debate. This seems like a bad strategy for the Clinton campaign; a clean break would have short-circuited the controversy.

Populist Advisor

This revelation that Mark Penn is advising on the Colombian free trade deal while his candidate is out there bashing NAFTA at every opportunity really rankles. Clinton's continued loyalty to Penn reflects horribly on her, and certainly won't help her in the trustworthiness department. Of course, I don't think Obama is committed to dismantling NAFTA either - if we want that to happen we have to demand it.

Old Wars Get Me Bored

We've almost gone a whole term without any new invasions, which is just so ordinary. Finally, the Bush Administration has snapped out of it and decided to spice things up.

The U.S. launched an airstrike Monday on a Somali town held by Islamic extremists to go after a group of terrorist suspects, U.S. defense officials said.

Three missiles hit Dobley, a town four miles from the Kenyan border, destroying a home and seriously injured eight people, police and witnesses said. The remnants of an Islamic force that had once ruled much of southern Somalia took over Dobley last week.

"It was a deliberate, precise strike against a known terrorist and his associates," one U.S. military official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the record.

That's not entirely new, of course, since we ran a proxy war with Somalia last year, using the Ethiopian army, and have bombed suspected Al Qaeda targets on the Horn of Africa in the past. The fact that we're still having to provide ordnance after that war was supposed to be "over" suggests that the Islamists are still alive and well.

But the NEW war could be in South America, where Hugo Chavez has massed troops on the border with Colombia.

Venezuela and Ecuador ordered troops to their borders with Colombia, sharply raising tensions after Colombia killed a top rebel leader on Ecuadorean soil.

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday promised Venezuela would respond militarily if Colombia violates its border, where he ordered tanks as well as thousands of troops. He also ordered closed Venezuela's embassy in Bogota.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said he deployed troops to the border while also withdrawing his government's ambassador from Bogota and expelling Colombia's top diplomat.

''There is no justification,'' Correa said Sunday night, snubbing an earlier announcement from Colombia that it would apologize for the military incursion.

Seems like a clear case of Colombia violating Ecuador's border sovereignty. And this might just be posturing. But consider - The White House has wanted to depose Chavez for years. They even aided an attempted coup back in 2002. Colombia's major donor of military aid is the United States. Of course, most of that goes to fighting the useless Drug War. But the mix of a US-backed government in a threatened war with Venezuela is combustible. Watch to see if we send any "advisors" down there in the next few weeks.

Winning The War On Drugs

Our efforts in Afghanistan are putting Colombia out of business! Rejoice!

Afghanistan's Helmand province, heartland of Taliban guerrillas fighting NATO forces, is about to become the world's largest drug supplier, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

Helmand, a province in the south of Afghanistan, cultivated more drugs than entire countries such as Myanmar, Morocco or even Colombia, the Vienna-based U.N. Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) said in its 2007 World Drug Report.

"Helmand province, severely threatened by insurgency, is becoming the world's biggest drug supplier. In Afghanistan, opium is a security issue more than a drug issue," UNODC Director Antonio Marias Costa said in the report's preface.

There's not going to be any money left in the drug supply trade for countries like Colombia. They'll naturally have to move to other crops!

This is one instance where the drug czar and the war czar must have gotten together to make this happen.

Seriously, this is what happens in the desperation of war zones, and it shows that Afghanistan is growing ever worse, six years after the invasion.

Newt the Culture Warrior

Are ya kiddin' me?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Liberty University's graduating class Saturday to honor the spirit of school founder Jerry Falwell by confronting "the growing culture of radical secularism" with Christian ideals [...]

"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law, nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.

I don't know what kind of secularism rates as "radical," but I would say someone so disconnected from Judeo-Christian ethics that he would cheat on his wife and divorce her while she was in the hospital for cancer... that's pretty out there on the edge.

Newt looked particularly buffoonish on Meet the Press this morning, doing everything he could to not talk about Iraq when arguing that we should stay in Iraq. He used examples like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, the US circa 1776, etc. Chris Dodd actually didn't let him get away with the Colombia example because he actually has worked on the issue. Gingrich's point was that we should essentially be unconditionally supporting Alvaro Uribe and not expecting an American standard of democracy (hasn't Colombia had democracy longer than us?) Dodd replied that Colombian money appropriated by the Congress is going into rebuilding and strengthening the FARC, why should we be silent about that?

This is classic Gingrich argument style. He mentions something that he hopes his opponent doesn't know about so he'll get the point conceded to him. Pumpkinhead Russert was certainly willing to do so. If you challenge Gingrich's houses of straw, they collapse with a mere breath.

...there's an interesting profile of Dodd and his bid to separate himself and his policy ideas in the race for the nomination. The article itself is a problem for Dodd, as it's pretty much all about "how do you get into the top tier" instead of "what are your ideas." Dodd is still among the very few candidates I'm taking a look at because he's sensible, knowledgeable and willing to take strong stands, like co-sponsoring Feingold-Reid before any other candidate, and advocating for a corporate carbon tax.

World Report

Iraq was invaded as part of a global security strategy. How are things going arounfd the globe?

Afghan women are setting themselves on fire with increasing frequency, as they prefer a gruesome death to life under an increasingly resurgent fundamentalist strain, including the Taliban.

Mortar attacks are increasing in Somalia, where the insurgency there shows no signs of letting up months after the Ethiopian army defeated the Islamic Courts Union. As Eric Martin put it:

Interestingly enough, despite Ethiopia's penchant for unrestrained brutality and disregard for international norms, as well as relatively inattentive media coverage, it appears that an insurgency is taking root and thriving regardless. To such a degree that Ethiopian forces are heading for the exits and the current Somali government can barely take up residence in the nation's capital.

Why, it's almost as if insurgencies can get by without the aid and comfort of American leftists, humanitarian groups, the UN and the treasonous Western media. One might even conclude that, at times, insurgents have goals and motivations that provide their own animating impetus - not derived solely from the domestic political situation in the occupier's home country. Imagine the implications.

Perhaps we could extrapolate that Iraqi insurgents would be fighting on regardless of whether or not Jamil Hussein is a real person, or whether or not six Sunnis were set on fire that one time?

In Colombia, Chiquita Banana Corp. funneled $1.7 million dollars to organizations listed as terrorist groups, including the FARC, who has kidnapped thousands of people over the years, including American citizens.

In one of the real trouble spots in the world, Zimbabwe, ruled by a fearsome de-facto dictator, Robert Mugabe, opposition leaders have been arrested, jailed and tortured leading up to national elections.

In Russia, practically anyone opposing the policies and the rule of Vladimir Putin gets tossed out a window.

It's reductive to ascribe all of these separate events around the world to the war in Iraq, but in many ways the US sets the tone for global leadership, and whether it's turning a blind eye to dictators and tyranny and terrorists, or giving hope and energy to insurgencies and anti-American groups all over the world, or failing to protect the most downtrodden elements of societies, we have a foreign policy that is dashed on the rocks and unable to function. We've lost our credibility, the support of our key allies, our ability toimpact world opinion, and our moral leadership.

This is a very distressing anniversary.

UPDATE: While I still believe that the Democrats have not done a good enough job articulating a coherent foreign policy strategy (the domestic one, however, is fairly robust), I agree that this is a great idea:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Thursday outlined his plan to tackle global poverty that calls for educating 23 million children in poor countries and creating a Cabinet-level position to oversee other initiatives.

Seeking to link poverty in other countries to U.S. national security, Edwards argued that militant extremists in nations torn apart by poverty and civil war have replaced government educational systems and are teaching young people to hate the United States.

"When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States -- it is a national security issue for the United States," he said at Saint Anselm College.

"If we tackle it, we have the chance to change a generation of potential extremists and enemies into a generation of friends," Edwards said.

This is certainly an area where the United States can set a more moral course and kill extremists with kindness rather than bullets. And it can work. Marginalizing extremists is part of everyone's war on terror strategy. It's what I meant by using liberal ideas with conservative means; the way to promote democracy is to give people the hope that they can achieve it.