[cypedembeda]

would be nice to liberalize relations with Columbia after they've made so much progress.
At the Summit of the Americas in Port-of-Spain, Mr. Obama asked to be seated next to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, and the pair discussed the deal, U.S. officials said. During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama had voiced opposition to the pact, citing violence toward labor organizers in Colombia. The deal, which would allow free trade between the two nations, is awaiting ratification in the U.S. Senate and has already been approved by Colombia's congress. New Movement on Colombia Trade Pact - WSJ.com

[gogFloark]

It's a great idea. I'm afraid the Colombians be treated like Poland and the Czech Republic, whose leaders stuck their necks out but have been burned by the new administration.

[gogFloark]

Well, Obama proves me wrong, and I couldn't be happier.
During the summit, President Barack Obama directed U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to lead a review of the ultracontroversial Colombia deal to “identify and work through any outstanding issues we might have so we might move forward with that,” Kirk said Monday in a conference call with reporters. “And that process will begin immediately.”

[VYholden]

It's so weird.

Working with other countries instead of threatening them

[xtrupoke]

It's so weird.

Working with other countries instead of threatening them

Next they'll be making decisions based on reliable evidence...

[gogFloark]

Next they'll be making decisions based on reliable evidence...

And yet they end up flipping to Bush's position on this one.

[xtrupoke]

And yet they end up flipping to Bush's position on this one.

I do generally support free trade, and think that the standard left/Democrat opposition is a mixture of bad reasoning and domestic lobbying. However, the Bush Admin had a habit of ignoring what the reality-based community was saying and responding to a fantasy world of its own imagining.

Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush

[gogFloark]

I do generally support free trade, and think that the standard left/Democrat opposition is a mixture of bad reasoning and domestic lobbying. However, the Bush Admin had a habit of ignoring what the reality-based community was saying and responding to a fantasy world of its own imagining.

Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush

Well, whatever the "reality-based" community is -- if you have to remind people you're rooted in reality, maybe you're not -- the fact is Obama moved from anti-Colombia free trade to pro-Colombia free trade, which is one of the positions Bush got right.

[viagbloggerz]

Some Democrats aren't so keen on the idea. This could be interesting.

Lawmaker Moves to Delay Free-Trade Pacts - WSJ.com

A Democratic senator from Ohio is moving to further tie up pending free-trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, setting up a potential clash between President Barack Obama and some members of his party.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a free-trade skeptic, said Wednesday he will soon introduce legislation that would effectively delay congressional consideration of the proposed free-trade pacts drafted under President George W. Bush. The Obama administration has indicated it is moving forward on the Colombia deal and is optimistic about the pending agreement with Panama.

Speaking before the Washington International Trade Association at George Washington University, Mr. Brown said any effort to finalize the pending agreements would be a continuation of failed Bush policies, and he warned of opposition in Congress.

[xtrupoke]

Well, whatever the "reality-based" community is -- if you have to remind people you're rooted in reality, maybe you're not -- the fact is Obama moved from anti-Colombia free trade to pro-Colombia free trade, which is one of the positions Bush got right.

I guess you didn't read Suskind's NY Times Magazine article, a rather well-known one from just before the 2004 election:

The [Bush Administration] aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

[gogFloark]

I guess you didn't read Suskind's NY Times Magazine article, a rather well-known one from just before the 2004 election:

Hilarious.

Groups have organized around a "discernible reality" that includes an unattributable quote from an anonymous Bush aide that comfortably proves every Times subscriber's prejudices?

We can't really discern its truth since we don't know who said it. I guess we have to take it on faith.

The funny part is that someone around Bush might have been dumb enough to say it. The hilarious part is the lack of any apparent irony in the use of the term by Bush's opponents.

[cypedembeda]

The NY Times may as well be fiction. It's Fox News for liberals.

[gogFloark]

Back on topic:

Obama is creating more international happiness by reneging on a campaign promise.

As in the case of Colombia, I think he deserves credit for this one, too.

[cypedembeda]

Back on topic:

Obama is creating more international happiness by reneging on a campaign promise.

As in the case of Colombia, I think he deserves credit for this one, too.

To his credit, he's showing an ability to reverse course if things aren't working. Perhaps he's starting to realize this is half foreign policy and half economic. How much sense did it make to play nice with nations that disagreed with us while picking fights with nations that hadn't had a quarrel with us? Perhaps someone also informed him of what happened in the 1930's when the government set off a trade war, after which global trade dropped by nearly 2/3's.

[viagbloggerz]

To his credit, he's showing an ability to reverse course if things aren't working. Perhaps he's starting to realize this is half foreign policy and half economic. How much sense did it make to play nice with nations that disagreed with us while picking fights with nations that hadn't had a quarrel with us? Perhaps someone also informed him of what happened in the 1930's when the government set off a trade war, after which global trade dropped by nearly 2/3's.

If he shows he can be pragmatic, that is a good thing.

Of course, people only like pragmatism when they change into your direction.