You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Pelosi will change rules to stop Colombia trade vote
2008-04-10
Moved to Thursday for further comment. AoS.
This stoopid tool is willing to undermine an American ally in a critical region to stick a finger in W's eye and to placate her free-trade-opponent and union backers.
Time for her to GO

Defying the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday the House will change its rules to avoid a required vote this year on a free-trade agreement with Colombia. Pelosi, D-Calif., said the change would remove the timetable that says Congress must take up trade bills within 90 legislative days after they are received from the White House. She intended to bring the rule proposal to the full House on Thursday.

“The president took action” in submitting the deal Tuesday, she said. “I will take mine tomorrow.”
"meow!"
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Pelosi was trying to do something “unprecedented in the history of negotiating trade deals in announcing that Democrats would change the rules in the middle of the game.”
no future treaties or deals would be trusted after this gaming.
Removing the timetable sets an awful precedent “for all future administrations, both Republicans and Democrats, because countries will not be able to have faith in our word when we're negotiating trade deals,” Perino said.

The White House says helping an important ally in South America is in the political and security interests of the United States. Perino accused Democrats of trying to kill the deal “without having to have their fingerprints on it.”

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement that Pelosi's proposal “would be cheating.” What nation, he asked, “would conclude a treaty with the United States knowing that Congress can change the rules of the game after it is negotiated?”

Most Democrats, backed by organized labor and some human rights groups, are against the Colombia deal. They have cited violence against union organizers in Colombia and have made clear they will not consider further agreements until legislation is passed to expand current programs to help American workers displaced by foreign trade. “Our focus on Colombia is the continuing violence against trade unionists,” said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director. He said he thought Pelosi's action effectively would stop any action on the agreement this year.'

The administration says the Colombian government has made significant strides in reducing violence. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, in a letter to Pelosi last week, said the agreement “will send a clear message of support to a strong democratic ally, particularly given the continuing assault on the government of Colombia by narco-terrorists and the recent provocative actions by an increasingly aggressive Venezuela.”

They also pointed out that the agreement would help U.S. companies with exports. While Colombia already enjoys duty-free status on almost all its exports to the United States, the agreement would reduce and eventually eliminate tariffs on U.S. shipments to Colombia.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the rule change would apply only to Colombia. Under trade rules that expired last year but still applied to the Colombia deal, the House has 60 legislative days to take up the agreement after the president sends it to Congress. The Senate has 30 days after that to act.

Pelosi said at a news conference that if legislation approving the trade deal were considered now, it would lose. “What message would that send” to the Colombian people?"
Especially if were to be seen that Dhimmicrats voted it down ...
She denied that the rule change doomed action on the agreement this year, saying that “depends on the good faith in which we conduct these negotiations.”

The administration has talked to Democrats about ways to help American workers. The House last year passed legislation to expand a program that provides financial aid and training to people who lose jobs as a result of trade. But the White House threatened a veto and the Senate never took it up.
Call and write your congress critter and let them know that you know what they are up to
Posted by:Frank G

#12  I'm sure it's all for the children somehow.
Posted by: gorb   2008-04-10 17:19  

#11  She's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When she comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until she bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'...
Posted by: Quint   2008-04-10 13:57  

#10  Never ceases to amaze me. Clearly these liberal knuckleheads couldnÂ’t run a lemonade stand and break even. If we allow the U.S. to export to Columbia tariff free that makes U.S. goods CHEAPER in Columbia. With the weak dollar it might (just extapilatin here) cause MORE goods to be sold? Hmm if more goods are sold donÂ’t we need more workers to produce them? If we have more workers paying Fed/SS/State taxes wouldnÂ’t that raise revenues? Course I are dumb and not part of the elite Donk congress.

P.S. I swear the picture gets more scary with each use.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2008-04-10 13:53  

#9  look at those eyes - she's not human, she's an evil bot.
Posted by: Woodrow Slusorong7967   2008-04-10 13:08  

#8  Some of this is the unions pulling her strings, but I'll bet a lot of this is also due to the the successful attack on FARC by the Colombians, which got Hugo's and Correa's panties in a bunch.

I wonder if any of Nancy's campaign funds can be traced to Citgo employees?
Posted by: charger   2008-04-10 11:51  

#7  I just gave her an earfull. This move also slams a rather large chef's knife into Charlie Rangels back. When the Dems eat their own, they don't hold back.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2008-04-10 11:48  

#6  American interests? Who cares! Let's screw George Bush. This has become such a knee-jerk reaction for Democrats that you wonder if some reverse psychology of the please don't throw me in the briar patch variety would be a fool-proof counter.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-04-10 11:25  

#5  Wall Street Journal has an editorial on her bad faith
Posted by: Frank G   2008-04-10 10:43  

#4  She truly is a despicable woman.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-04-10 09:54  

#3  The United States Congress is no longer recognized as a lawful operating branch of the United States Government. It is no longer considered constitutional, nor shall it be legally represented as such. This decision is final.
Posted by: newc   2008-04-10 03:49  

#2  The dhimocrats really want to lose both houses again, don't they?

Bunch of weasels.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-04-09 20:53  

#1  What on earth would the Honourable Speaker do with her time were her slim majority to become a minority?
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-04-09 20:05  

00:00