The New York Times has come out in favor of passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia.
We don’t say it all that often, but President Bush is right: Congress should pass the Colombian free-trade agreement now.
Mr. Bush signed the deal two years ago. The Democratic majority in Congress has refused to approve it out of a legitimate concern over the state of human rights in Colombia and less legitimate desires to pander to organized labor or deny Mr. Bush a foreign policy win.
We believe that the trade pact would be good for America’s economy and workers. Rejecting it would send a dismal message to allies the world over that the United States is an unreliable partner and, despite all that it preaches, does not really believe in opening markets to trade. There is no more time to waste. If the lame-duck Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule (formerly known as fast track) that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote.
I seem to recall, vaguely, that the NYT endorsed the candidate that ran against endorsing the agreement. They liked him; it was just his policies they didn’t much care for.
Go back and re-read the WaPo’s endorsement of Sen. Obama. Given the number of policies they disagreed with him on, the endorsement came across as you put it:
They liked him; it was just his policies the didn’t much care for.
Of course, I’d guess that the Gail Collins and co. are a lot closer ideologically to President elect Obama than Fred Hiatt is.
I oppose the Columbia Free Trade agreement–it’s a horrible thing. Even if the terms weren’t awful, though, I’d oppose it because I oppose all bilateral trade agreements. We should work on restarting the Doha rounds, and the WTO should be the prime mover for lowering trade barriers. Every time we do a bilateral agreement, we weaken the WTO and international instiutions for trade policy, which weakens the enforcability of trade agreements.