Rangel: Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals

by: David Sirota

Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 15:00


In my column last week, I praised the Obama team for suggesting they see the political and policy danger of backing President Bush's proposed NAFTA expansion into Colombia - a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. But now I see this little tidbit from Inside U.S. Trade:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) in a wide-ranging interview yesterday (Nov. 20) expressed optimism that President-elect Barack Obama will support passage of the Colombia and Panama free trade agreements during his time in office...

"I did not talk directly with the president-elect over Colombia, but everything that I heard from those people that [are] talking with him, [is] that he thought he could handle that and get it passed during his administration," Rangel said.

Rangel is the chairman of the committee that oversees trade, so this can't be chalked up to uninformed speculation - this is likely real, though by no means concrete (and perhaps flavored by Rangel's wishful thinking). Team Obama knows 70 new Democratic members were elected on explicitly anti-NAFTA themes, they know Obama campaigned throughout the industrial Midwest promising to change our trade policy; and they know that in the third presidential debate Obama explicitly reiterated his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

They're going to have to weigh all that against the pressure they're feeling from their corporate donors to pass this NAFTA expansion. If they do go forward, we could see a pretty tumultuous battle ensue.
David Sirota :: Rangel: Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals
ADDENDUM: Just to pre-empt any hijacking of the comments section and create a meta-teachable moment, before the claims of "attacking Obama" or "dishonesty" are (inevitably) rolled out - if you are going to make such claims,  please explain to us where in his post I have written anything factually dishonest?

As I see it:

  • I wrote a column praising Team Obama for their political smarts on the Colombia FTA
  • Inside U.S. Trade reported a new story about the chairman of the committee overseeing trade, and what he says were his interaction with Obama confidantes
  • Global Trade Watch reported on 70 new fair traders having won office
  • Obama having promised not to pass Colombia FTA
  • Obama campaigning against NAFTA expansions in the Midwest
  • Therefore, if Obama pushes the Colombia FTA, there will likely be a tumultuous congressional fight.

If you insist on taking the comments section and using it as a forum not to discuss trade but as a forum to accuse me of "attacking Obama" or being
"dishonest" (and I hope that doesn't happen) - please explain to us what I have written here (as opposed to whether Rangel is being dishonest) that is "attacking Obama" or being "dishonest."

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Rangel: Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals | 50 comments
diaries (2.00 / 2)
David, why is it that almost every one of your diaries is critical of Obama? You seem to find any hint that he may not be living up to your expectations and then formulate it into an attack. I'm not saying that any specific thing you have said is dishonest, however you seem to cling on to any nugget of disappointment . Moreover, you have a tendency to focus on one instance and then make generalizations about the Obama administration from that one piece of information. You seem to lose focus of the big picture.
"critical of Obama" (4.00 / 7)
Please explain where in this diary I have been "critical of Obama." Please do not say some undefinable "tone" - please be very explicit.
[ Parent ]
Title (4.00 / 2)
"Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals"

Although, that's a perfectly legitimate criticism, if true.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
"Criticism" (4.00 / 2)
I don't understand how that's criticism. The title says Rangel Says Obama confidantes are sending pro-nafta expansion signals. How is that "criticism?" Isn't that what Charlie Rangel said? I don't understand how that's "criticism." Isn't that just a fact? Didn't Charlie Rangel say that?
[ Parent ]
It's good criticism (4.00 / 2)
There's nothing wrong with criticism, per se. If what Rangel says is true, (and he could be blowing smoke), he should be criticized for it.

I dunno, maybe your post qualifies more of a warning of some kind, given it's just rumors about possible actions, not actual statements or actual actions. Whether it's criticism by some definition; I don't see the point in a semantic argument.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
It's true, and it's news (4.00 / 1)
Everything in this post is 100% factually true. Rangel did say what he said, and with him as the top lawmaker on the issue of trade, it's news - and big news, IMHO. To say that discussing it, or flagging it, is an "attack" on Obama or "dishonest" is absurd.
[ Parent ]
That's not what I said (4.00 / 2)
Calling it "criticism" does not imply "attack" or "dishonest".

I never called the post dishonest, or an attack. I never called it counterfactual. The closest I came to that was saying that Rangel might have been exaggerating - something you yourself said. In fact, I've agreed with your criticism. In my first comment in this thread, I said "I like this diary."

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Calm down, David! (4.00 / 2)
Maybe you're a little hypersensitive because of the pushback you've been getting over some of your other blog posts.

What Fwiffo probably thinks (I can't speak for him) and what I think this time is that the criticism is more substantive rather than irrelevant, ambiguous, premature, or possibly based on false premises.  

[ Parent ]
Hmm, you say its not "uninformed speculation", and "likely real" (0.00 / 0)
So, this is more than simply quoting it, you're also adding your own judgment. And if a well known opponent of free trade agreements says it's "likely real" that Obama now supports the Columbia deal imho it's understandable that some commenters here see this as criticism. I appreciate your effort to concentrate on just reporting the news with this story, but pls don't forget this is only the latest posting in a long series, and this context influences reactions on it.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with your story, it's just that your reaction to criticism could be more relaxed.

[ Parent ]
Why are you being defensive (0.00 / 0)
If in fact he does do this he deserves all the disapprobation he can get. I was astonished at the people defending his FISA about face. Now this?  
[ Parent ]
So should we call our congresspeople? (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, mine is Yvette Clarke (D-11th of NY), take a guess who my senators are.

I just hope they don't ignore the needs of their constituents, but I'm not so optimistic...

mine too!!! (4.00 / 1)
bffs? :)
[ Parent ]
also, she voted for the cheney impeachment (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Substance! (4.00 / 4)
Hey, I like this diary, David.

I would add that Obama appeared to rebuff Bush when he offered the Columbia trade deal as a compromise to get the auto bailout passed in the lame duck session, so that's one good sign.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

elected on anti-nafta platform (4.00 / 2)
some of the politicians who ran on an anti-nafta platform voted for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. In any case it might make sense to start with the PFTA vote to analyze what can be done to stop the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.
all i can say is that i would be beyond outraged if (4.00 / 2)
obama made the same mistake as clinton by prioritizing a divisive free trade fight over domestic agendas like healthcare reform.

i would simply be outraged if he pushed Columbia free trade a few years into his presidency.  

Get ready to hold your breath... (4.00 / 3)
his resignation days before the Big 3 coming to plead their case... his relative silence on saving the auto industry... the lack of support of congresisonal democrats... news reports of Obama supporting bankruptcy..now this...

It sure looks like MI and Ohio got had.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
all i can say is that i would be beyond outraged if (4.00 / 3)
obama made the same mistake as clinton by prioritizing a divisive free trade fight over domestic agendas like healthcare reform.

i would simply be outraged if he pushed Columbia free trade a few years into his presidency.  

I don't have a photographic memory.... (4.00 / 3)
but the impression I got from the debates was that he was against the currently proposed agreement - not any agreement at all. He said he wants certain protections in any trade agreements. I personally never got the impression he was actually against free trade. Anybody who was hoping he was absolutely against all free trade will be very disappointed. I am not advocating any position on trade, but just giving my opinion of what he indicated during the campaign.
To clarify (0.00 / 0)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...

Yes your interpretation is correct and Sirota's is wrong.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

[ Parent ]
Umm... (4.00 / 3)
The headline of the piece you cite is "Obama Vows Opposition to Colombia Trade Deal" and reports:

The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement "because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements."

So, um, do you want to amend your claim that I'm wrong?

[ Parent ]
easy (0.00 / 0)
Well, that's easy to deal with.  At a certain point in time, Obama will simply say that violence against unions in Colombia has fallen (and, in fact, it has already has compared to earlier levels) and the pact now deserves support.

Note that Obama has already supported the Peru trade pact, which, if I'm not mistaken, was almost identical to the proposed Colombia one.

[ Parent ]
What does fair trade mean exactly? (4.00 / 1)
Does it mean opposition to all free trade agreements or does it mean making them fair trade agreements?

Obama endorsed the idea that it is good to trade if the appropriate human rights are enforced.  Not that it is bad to trade.

If he can help the cause of human rights in columbia thats a good thing rather than a bad thing.


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

good to trade if the appropriate human rights are enforced (4.00 / 2)
Is that all it takes?  Can the country subsidize their imports?  Can they pollute?  Can they manipulate their currency to game profits?  Can they ban unions?   Can they impose huge tariffs on American imports?  Fair means good for US workers too and not just for CEOs, stock holders, and other countries.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Not to be glib, but... (4.00 / 1)
Can the country subsidize their imports?  

Yes.  Within reason, of course.  But given how much the US subsidizes industries I'm not sure we're in much of a position to complain.

Can they pollute?  

Some.  It depends on what kind of pollution, how it compares to US pollution in the same area, and the developmental effects of trying to strictly regulate the issue.

Can they manipulate their currency to game profits?  

Sure.

Can they ban unions?

Of course not.

Can they impose huge tariffs on American imports?  

Huge is relative.  Surely they are justified in imposing some tariffs on some things, yes?  If an FTA can reduce the amount of tariffs overall, it seems silly to make the best the enemy of the good.

None of which is to say that reaching these goals is easy. The Colombia FTA as written, for example, is not particularly close.  And beyond that, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about bilateral trade agreements even if they end up looking decent, simply because I think they may reduce the impetus for serious global trade negotiations.  

[ Parent ]
What's good for the goose is good for gander. (0.00 / 0)
We don't play the game.  If we don't, they can't.  If they do, then we should.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
actually the wealthy in the u.s. rig the game in their own interests (4.00 / 4)
i think it makes more sense to look at this from a worker solidarity vantage point and start talking to some of the workers and worker movements in columbia than turning this into a "U.S. good - Colombia bad" kind of argument.
[ Parent ]
It isn't that Colombia is bad... (0.00 / 0)
I think we have an obligation to do the best we can for the planet and evrybody on it, but I don't think I am obligated to jump off a cliff to make room for someone else.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
but they did for you and me... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama signed the Peru Free Trade agreement (4.00 / 3)
because it included protections he sought.  So, Rangels statement:

I did not talk directly with the president-elect over Colombia, but everything that I heard from those people that [are] talking with him, [is] that he thought he could handle that and get it passed during his administration"

does not in any way state that the way the Columbia agreement reads currently was the one that Obama would eventually be embracing.  It looks vague enough to let us know that the Columbia agreement will most likely be reworked to be similar to the PFTA, then it will be acceptable.  Is the issue here that you think that Obama would just go with the Columbia agreement as it is currently proposed, or is the issue that some are thinking Obama should be against any Free trade agreement, even if reworked?

That's a point that I would like to see clarified, too. (4.00 / 2)
The message always seems to be 'get rid of NAFTA', 'NAFTA no', 'anti NAFTA'...
This somewhat makes it look as if trade is generally negative. Ok, sometimes fair trade is mentioned, but never any specifics, afaics. Where are the stories about how NAFTA can be reformed so that it puts a higher focus on improving the situations of workers in the member states, did I miss them? Is the anti-NAFTA movement mainly isolationist, without any constructive ideas of its own?
[ Parent ]
Peru/Colombia (0.00 / 0)
Are there any differences between the Peru FTA and the proposed Colombia FTA?  I was under the impression they were virtually identical.  The AFL-CIO pushed harder on the Colombia deal due to violence against trade unions in Colombia, and Obama went along.  
[ Parent ]
Many, many issues (4.00 / 2)
1. It's not an "expansion of NAFTA" except in the most general sense where NAFTA = trade agreement and this = trade agreement.  The terms are different, the effects are different.  If you want to take a "no trade agreements are good" stance, fine, make that case.  But this syllogism game doesn't really contribute anything.

2. Obama made it clear that he is not against trade agreements per se, only against ones without protections that fail to achieve a good.  Colombia in its current state is one of those.  There is no, zero, evidence that he has any interest in pushing such an agreement.  In fact, he made it clear that it wasn't even acceptable enough to make for a horsetrade on something he does actually want.

3. At some point, wouldn't you start to wonder whether if you continually provoke the same reaction, there's just a small chance that there might be some legitimacy to that reaction?  Or, to put it another way, might it tell you something that you have now resorted to including your update expressing outrage at people attacking you in your original post?

There's a difference between being critical of Obama (clearly acceptable and desirable) and going out of your way to manufacture things to complain about.

He has made it clear all along that he is not going to be the anti-trade, populist firebrand that you appear to desire.  I am frankly happy about that.  But there is surely space to debate the issue.  However, attacking him for changing is silly.  

"Attacking him" (4.00 / 1)
Where was an "attack?" Please be explicit. You made the accusation - now back up where in this diary there is an "attack."

Also - both anti- and pro- Colombia FTA folks agree that this is the NAFTA trade model. Your claim that "the terms are different" confirms that you haven't bothered to read the two agreements. They are virtually identical in structure, again, as both sides agree.

[ Parent ]
Um (4.00 / 3)
The thesis of this diary is that Obama campaigned against the Colombia FTA, but now he's "supporting" it.  That's an attack.  What else would it be?

This game you always play where you freak out at people for using a word that was not in your post (like "attack" for example) but which obviously applies gets very old very fast.  

That you want to attack Obama is not itself a problem.  If you limit those attacks to areas where there is strong evidence, cool.  In fact, if you want to attack him for not being anti-trade enough, that would be legitimate, too.  I wouldn't agree with you, but it's a fair debate.  But that's not what you did.  You feigned anger about a shift in policy where no shift is evident.

I have in fact read the agreement.  And I strongly oppose it.  But calling it an "expansion of NAFTA" is rhetorical sleight-of-hand.  It is a separate trade agreement with no linkages to NAFTA.  It doesn't make NAFTA bigger.  It is only an expansion in the sense that every FTA negotiated has been an expansion.  And in the sense that NAFTA itself was an expansion of long-standing approaches to trade.  Do you also consider the FTA with Bahrain or Oman to be an expansion of NAFTA?

[ Parent ]
That is not the "thesis" (0.00 / 0)
That's a flat-out lie. The diary says Obama has taken a stand, his advisers seem intent on respecting that stand, but one lawmaker says he's hearing different things - and therefore, if that's true, there will be a big fight.

There is not a single shred of proof to say I said he's backing out of his promise. In fact, the diary specifically says Rangel may not be accurate.

So you've now lied right here. It's disgusting.

[ Parent ]
Oh good lord (0.00 / 1)
I gave up on this place for most of October because I was finding it combative and unpleasant, with none of the analysis I had grown to enjoy.

I came back, hoping that things would get back on track.  Obviously I was wrong.  I'll probably still stop by occasionally to see if Bowers has written anything good, but this is definitely the last time I step into the muck of one of your posts.

Cheers.  

[ Parent ]
Relax (4.00 / 2)
This is what gets you in trouble.  I've read your post twice and all of the comments once.  I was good with most of it.  Baldwin sees your post as an attack on Obama (I didn't, I considered it a warning shot).  You turned around and called him a liar.  I don't think he was lying, he was stating what he understood from your post.  

 What I understand from your post is that Obama, after saying he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, is now possibley considering pushing the Columbia deal through.  Your evidence comes from what Rangel has stated.  Am I correct in saying that this post was meant to be a warning flare?  Something everyone should keep an eye on.

At any rate, on to your post.  If Obama was willing to pass the Columbian deal, why not give in to Bush on the auto bailout?  I will, however, take it under advisement that there is a small piece of evidence that might say Obama could be willing to pass the deal.  Also, I have noticed and appreciate that you made efforts to respond to more people.      

[ Parent ]
"not a single shred of proof"? It's in the pudding. (4.00 / 3)
Uh, in the phrasing of your argument:
"Rangel is the chairman of the committee that oversees trade, so this can't be chalked up to uninformed speculation - this is likely real, though by no means concrete (and perhaps flavored by Rangel's wishful thinking).

Well, you say here Rangel's statement (that Obama "thought he could handle that and get it passed during his administration") is "likely real" and no "uninformed speculation". So, you seem to believe its more probable than not that Obama has revised his anti Colombian FTA stance. Then imho it's not too farfetched to say "The thesis of this diary is that Obama campaigned against the Colombia FTA, but now he's "supporting" it.". However, agreed, drawing the conclusion from this that you intended to attack Obama goes too far. But then, so does your accusation that a commenter who only posted his personal opinion "lied right here".

Hmm, maybe deescalation would have been a  better idea than shooting back with the "L" word...  

[ Parent ]
Attack? (4.00 / 1)
You wrote:

The thesis of this diary is that Obama campaigned against the Colombia FTA, but now he's "supporting" it.  That's an attack.  What else would it be?

Good god almighty in no way shape or form could this be considered an attack. At least not in the universe I inhabit.

[ Parent ]
Mr. Sirota (4.00 / 1)
It's pretty clear that the Obama fans on this site will accept nothing less than total fealty to Obama. I was a Hillary supporter and if I'm not mistaken you were pretty against her and pretty much supported Obama during the election season-which is perfectly fine of course. It seems to me though that there are plenty of people who are prepared to treat Obama just as the radical right treated shrub(at least until it became clear the rest of the nation absolutely hated him). That is as a God.
[ Parent ]
Let's See (0.00 / 0)
So far we have speculative articles from the NYT and second and third-hand reports of what Obama will and will not do. Yep, solid basis for forming opinions.
Progressive concern reporting about Obama possible actions (0.00 / 0)
I get that this is what you are doing.  

This is one of your better attempts at progressive concern reporting. Everything is accurate.

If there is any cause for concern here, for your reporting, it would be missing the larger truth for the fact of a tidbit.

You didn't do this in this article, though.

But if you continually, constantly, reported out on "progressive concerns about Obama's possible actions based on small tidbit of information" (as opposed to actual actions), while ignoring say, "progressive elation about Obama's possible actions based on other small  (or large)tidbits", then you may be ignoring the pro-Obama evidence.

Hope that sentence makes some sense!

I used to see that all the time - and still do a lot - in the fantasy conservative blogosphere.  Raising as "HUGE ISSUES', some bogus, or small mistake that a democrat/progressive made, and then generalizing that to some larger conservative truth, or ignoring evidence that ran counter to their wishes, on a subject.

I wouldn't like that see here.  So, if you would, please report out on progressive elation on Obama's possible actions as well.

Another facet of this - Priority.

EXAMPLE:  

Today, Obama's speech promoted infrastructure, job creation, energy conservation, in what will end up being a HUGE progressive program, that will move the nation forward.

I don't see a main poster on Open Left, posting for joy about this speech.  Which of course, very obviously is a big focus for Obama, and a big focus for progressives.

Instead, we get these - I'll go ahead and say it - PICAYUNE posts regarding what Rangel said in an aside.  

And then the NYT center left post.

And then the celebrity ate the left post.

Sure, report out of those things.  Especially in the discipline manner you did here.

But really - what was the progressive story of the day?

It was a WIN!!  

Based on Obama's address, right?


but... (0.00 / 0)
Certainly you do not think the mainstream media outlets have presented Obama in a balanced fashion? It's actually refreshing to see how some of his positions undermine the rosy, leftist portrait that has seduced so many people into silence.  
[ Parent ]
2.5 mil PSE jobs are a drop in a bucket. (0.00 / 0)
I administered the old public service employment jobs of the Carter administration.  While they were a welcome bandaid to people and local governmental units, they were no substitute for real jobs.  

2.5 million public service jobs is nothing compared to the 3.5 million HIGH WAGE jobs that have already been lost to trade and the 3 million more HIGH WAGE jobs that will be lost because of Democratic game playing with the autos.  

So far, the only thing I see is a neoliberal that pandered lied for votes.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
David - (4.00 / 1)
You didn't get the leaked Canadian memo during the primaries?  Remember it said that Obama "winked" regarding his NAFTA protests?  Neither Clinton nor Obama would have done anything to "renegotiate" (and certainly not repeal) NAFTA.

Listen to his "make 2.5 million jobs" speech.  Does it say he's getting rid of NAFTA? After all the fuss over NAFTA, he picked Biden who voted for it -- and now, Larry Summers will likely get the nod as his Senior Economic Advisor.  This is what happens when liberals go into worship mode and the media join them.

Btw, I'm not in favor of getting rid of NAFTA, but I never pretended to hold this opinion in order to get elected.
http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

Thanks David (0.00 / 0)
In the next two years it is going to be hard to be the voice of warning.
I have been attending Single Payer Healthcare events and many people there believe President Elect Obama will support a single payer bill.  Oddly  they believe he will push for such a bill because it makes the most sense given the economic times.
  This is in face of the fact that he has never in his Presidential campaign, at least, said he supported such a bill.  They want to believe so badly that offering his statements and his proposals from his website just doesn't faze them.
I get the same reaction that I am attacking him and his good intentions.  What I am trying to say is the HR676 will most likely loose co-sponsors as some of the Congressional Representatives will sign on to Healthcare proposals more in line with the one Obama laid out in his campaign.  HR676 will be an uphill battle and is by no means will be welcomed with open arms by the new administration.  This presents a new challenge for Single Payer and we need to be aware and think how we need to change tactics.
  It is going to be a long two years for those that want to push a more progressive agenda!
As is usually the case, I'm with David here (0.00 / 0)
I see no benefit in letting Obama get comfortable, start drifting in a rightward direction, and potentially betray progressive priorities. Progressives must keep nipping at his heels if they want to see their priorities addressed. Sycophantic behavior on the left is no better than that on the right. Question everything.
Rangel: Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals | 50 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox