Mark Penn steps down

[Dirt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_penn

Finally. He should've left before Super Duper Tuesday.

[Sarkus]

I guess there are a lot of ways to interpret the move. Among them, the two that stand out to me are 1) He knows she's about to lose in PA and it's all over or 2) he's walking away because she won't conceed that the end is near and he thinks she's hanging on too long.

[arctangent]

I guess there are a lot of ways to interpret the move. Among them, the two that stand out to me are 1) He knows she's about to lose in PA and it's all over or 2) he's walking away because she won't conceed that the end is near and he thinks she's hanging on too long.

Or it might just be this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Colombia_fires_Mark_Penns_firm.html):


The Colombian embassy retained Penn’s firm in March 2007 to provide “public relations and communications consulting services” for the controversial free trade agreement and Plan Colombia, an aid program to help the country uproot the narcotics industry.

Sen. Clinton has made no bones that she opposes the Colombia trade pact and would vote against it. She may get her chance soon as the Bush administration appears ready to send the pact up to Congress as early as next week without the traditional blessing from the majority party.

Penn apologized for the meeting on Friday. Nonetheless, some labor unions – which vehemently oppose the Colombia trade deal – called on Clinton to fire Penn over the incident.

Or maybe that he's just incompetent to run a campaign.

[Sarkus]

Hmmm. I wasn't aware of that. My mistake for not reading the news article and just looking at the headline.

[Anti-Bunny]

Penn apologized for the meeting on Friday. Nonetheless, some labor unions – which vehemently oppose the Colombia trade deal – called on Clinton to fire Penn over the incident.
So labor unions are dictating Clinton's actions, openly? Nice.

[Sarkus]

So labor unions are dictating Clinton's actions, openly? Nice.

At this point, she hardly has a choice politically. If PA ends up being as close as the polls are right now, she's in very bad shape. So, she can't afford to anger any of her core supporters. Plus, her union support has been challenged by the whole NAFTA issue.

[Lum]

Or maybe that he's just incompetent to run a campaign.

This. Pretty much every "off the record" tale from within the Clinton campaign has Penn *hated*, and blamed for Clinton's turning a sure nomination into a long-shot bid. I'd bet this latest tidbit was used as an excuse to shove him out the door.

Clinton's still convinced they are going to win PA, which is why they are feverishly spinning that they might not, so that they can have a come-from-behind win!

[triggercut]

...or perhaps he isn't stepping down at all, but will continue to run the campaign under a different job title.

[Rimbo]

Hmmm. I wasn't aware of that. My mistake for not reading the news article and just looking at the headline.

I liked your explanation much better.

[Sarkus]

I liked your explanation much better.

I caught a moment of CNN tonight and they weren't really spinning it as an unfortunate resignation. Rather, they were pushing it as proof Hillary's campaign is in deep trouble.

I wonder what will happen if she wins PA by a narrow margin or even loses it. At that point, her whole argument about how she can win pretty much disappears.

[Lizard_King]

So labor unions are dictating Clinton's actions, openly? Nice.

That's one way to spin it. It seems pretty obvious to me that you can't have your top guy lobbying for the people you are arguing against as one of your issues. I really don't see much wrong with the unions calling her on that, as what Penn did here was pretty stupid. I have a tough time thinking he never thought to run it by the campaign, but I guess that would explain a lot of the things he does.

[Anti-Bunny]

That's one way to spin it. It seems pretty obvious to me that you can't have your top guy lobbying for the people you are arguing against as one of your issues. I really don't see much wrong with the unions calling her on that, as what Penn did here was pretty stupid. I have a tough time thinking he never thought to run it by the campaign, but I guess that would explain a lot of the things he does.

True, I guess I just have a problem with preferring labor unions over free trade with Columbia, which is a country that could really use it. But Free Trade is a horrible, immoral conservative value, of course, as opposed to unions, which can do no wrong and really are the 'little guys', honest.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm pretty sure the lack of an exploitative free trade pact with the United States is not a major problem for Columbia.

[Tankero]

Colombian social activists are largely opposed to a free trade agreement with the U.S.A. There's little economic rationale for their opposition, mind you, they just don't like the idea of further entrenching the nation's status as a "client state". What with them being an imperialistic villian, out to conquer the Amazon jungle for all its sweet natural resources and whatnot.

As far as "really could use it"... uh... not quite.

[Lum]

I wonder what will happen if she wins PA by a narrow margin or even loses it. At that point, her whole argument about how she can win pretty much disappears.

If Clinton wins PA by a narrow margin they will still spin it for all they can as "able to deliver key battleground states", but it will make it impossible for her to win based on delegate count (as opposed to merely extremely difficult should she win PA with a double digit margin). Of course, in every interview she gives the press now, she points out that delegates aren't actually commited to the slate they were voted under, which does pose the question of why she thinks we should even bother, you know, voting.

If Clinton loses PA, she'll concede the next day. No amount of spin could make up for that. It's very doubtful that will happen, though.

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm pretty sure the lack of an exploitative free trade pact with the United States is not a major problem for Columbia.

There is no reason to believe that a free trade pact would be exploitative.. Aside from the irrational argument that 'free trade is bad', which is based on the argument that smaller, poorer countries only have stuff they want to buy and nothing they can sell to the rest of the world to balance things out with. Columbia has plenty of goods to export as well as all manner of natural resources.

[Lizard_King]

True, I guess I just have a problem with preferring labor unions over free trade with Columbia, which is a country that could really use it. But Free Trade is a horrible, immoral conservative value, of course, as opposed to unions, which can do no wrong and really are the 'little guys', honest.
Well, I'm pretty sure we agree on the free trade issue, I'm just saying that as far as Hillary Clinton's staked position on it, this is the only move left for her with Penn. I have a problem with a candidate explicitly siding with unions in that way, but I'm not going to re-penalize her for being consistent (in her own Hillary damage control way) on the subject, if that makes sense.

[Tankero]

I don't understand what unions have to lose in a free trade agreement with Colombia. I thought the objections were based on human rights violations and such.

[Anti-Bunny]

I don't understand what unions have to lose in a free trade agreement with Colombia. I thought the objections were based on human rights violations and such.

Negative effects on human rights after free trade pacts is a red herring (and usually the opposite is true). US unions are simply worried about competition and losing their lock on a given market.

[bigdruid]

The "human rights violations" and "health/safety standards" are the typical smokescreen that Democrats in general and Labor in particular use to oppose free trade.

At its core, it's just protectionism - that's why the unions are involved, and not, say, human rights organizations and consumer advocates.

[Anti-Bunny]

It's probably worth mentioning that free trade might hurt SOME sectors of the economy. That's inevitable. Just look at Flint, MI. But even so, the competition that Japan gave to the auto industry helped both Japan and the US, as a whole.

[Tankero]

Negative effects on human rights after free trade pacts is a red herring (and usually the opposite is true).

Uhh...

Ok. I meant human rights violations COMMITTED, not... the other way around.

Colombia is not a manufacturing center for ANYTHING, given the relative weakness of its infrastructure. Most of the exports we've got are either produce or cultural as a matter of fact. I doubt that neither the corn nor rice industry feel threatened by free trade with Colombia, which is why this talk of unions utterly confuses me.

[Anti-Bunny]

I doubt that neither the corn nor rice industry feel threatened by free trade with Colombia, which is why this talk of unions utterly confuses me.

I don't know what the unions' angle on this is, it's hard to tell. But if I were to guess one particular market, it could be coal and petroleum. The major mining union (http://www.umwa.org/) in the US is a member of AFL-CIO, so it makes sense for them to oppose a free trade agreement.

[jeffd]

Some notes:

1) It seems more likely that Penn was forced out, rather than he voluntarily "stepped down," the way Dirt claims.
2) For all his "stepping down," at this point it seems more like a ceremonial rebuke than anything else. Ambers (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/penn_out_then_in.php):

Demoted Hillary Clinton strategist Mark Penn may no longer have the coveted title of chief strategist, but he remains a key member of the campaign's senior staff. Indeed, it is not clear precisely what Mr. Penn's demotion entails, other than a public rebuke.

Mr. Penn took part on the campaign's morning message call this morning, as usual.

This afternoon, he is also scheduled to be on a call with Clinton and other aides to begin to prepare for Saturday's presidential debate in Philadelphia.

Mr. Penn "is still going to be very much involved," a senior campaign official said.

[Dirt]

Some notes:

1) It seems more likely that Penn was forced out, rather than he voluntarily "stepped down," the way Dirt claims.

I was referencing the original title to the article. If there's spin to it, it's not mine.

[jeffd]

My bad then.

From what I read - it was Clinton herself who demanded he be given the boot (insofar as a boot has been delivered). She was apparently furious when she discovered the whole Columbia thing.

What's really interesting is that she didn't force Penn to resign from his lobbying firm. Karl Rove occupied basically the same position in the original Bush campaign, and GWB forced him to resign from his lobbying job in order to be the campaign strategist. Penn's other job has been a ticking conflict of interest time bomb, and it went off at probably a bad time (Clinton in a fight for her life in a state full of union voters where the race is already tightening dramatically).

From the 10,000 foot view - Penn's a pretty crappy strategist, he's notorious for massaging his polling data to reflect his own opinions on strategy whatnot, and IMO it says something troubling about Senator Clinton's judgment that she kept him around this long.

[triggercut]

...and once again, let's revisit this: he hasn't gone anywhere. Mark Penn is still steering the ship:

Marc Ambinder:


Demoted Hillary Clinton strategist Mark Penn may no longer have the coveted title of chief strategist, but he remains a key member of the campaign's senior staff.

Mr. Penn took part on the campaign's morning message call this morning, as usual.

This afternoon, he is also scheduled to be on a call with Clinton and other aides to begin to prepare for Saturday's presidential debate in Philadelphia.

Mr. Penn "is still going to be very much involved," a senior campaign official said.

Indeed, it is not clear precisely what Mr. Penn's title-change entails, other than a public rebuke, although the official said that "there is a difference between being in charge and being one of many voices.

[Dirt]

Sometimes, loyalty can be a negative thing. Especially when it's hurting yourself. But I guess that's one (arguably) good thing about the Clintons.

[triggercut]

Sometimes, loyalty can be a negative thing. Especially when it's hurting yourself. But I guess that's one (arguably) good thing about the Clintons.

No it isn't a "good thing", and is definitely a negative in this election cycle. After 8 years of cronyism and "Helluva job, Brownie" fuckwittery in the White House, blind loyalty to morons, jackasses, and the underqualified lucky or rich is not a trait to be praised or actioned upon with a vote.

[Dirt]

At this point, keeping Mark Penn around is only hurting Hillary herself and nobody else. It's her perogative. He's done quite a bit for her, including helping her become a US Senator. I certainly would not begrudge her for not disowning him.

[Sarkus]

From what I've read, Penn has a pretty good track record both with Bill and Hillary, so this idea that he "sucks" is pretty off target.

[arctangent]

From what I've read, Penn has a pretty good track record both with Bill and Hillary, so this idea that he "sucks" is pretty off target.

Yeah, Mark Penn is why Hillary is winning the nomination running away, like everyone thought she would.

Whether it's mostly his fault or not, the perception is that it's Mark Penn's doing, specifically the decision to go negative on Obama, that is a huge factor in Clinton losing the nomination.

[Sarkus]

Yeah, Mark Penn is why Hillary is winning the nomination running away, like everyone thought she would.

Whether it's mostly his fault or not, the perception is that it's Mark Penn's doing, specifically the decision to go negative on Obama, that is a huge factor in Clinton losing the nomination.

My point is that he had a good repuation as a strategist before this election, since he was a key player for Bill in both his presidential runs and for Hillary in the run for the Senate. He may be blowing this one, but then I also haven't seen any better ideas of what Hillary is supposed to have done. Once Obama adopted most of the same policies, it really came down to personality and such, and she clearly wasn't winning on those.

[JeffL]

On Columbia - does anyone else have any actual business experience with the country? We just had a trip down there, looking at selling some polymeric materials into their ink, printing, and other coatings markets, and it appeared to be a pretty healthy market and surprisingly good environment. Surprising, for me, because I had some stereotypes of what it would be like.

On Penn - no matter what he's done in the past, he was the key strategist, and he completely blew it at every stage. Add to that the constant and bitter in-fighting that insiders report, and there's going to be a fascinating post-mortem case study of this failed campaign.

[Tortilla]

On Columbia - does anyone else have any actual business experience with the country? We just had a trip down there, looking at selling some polymeric materials into their ink, printing, and other coatings markets, and it appeared to be a pretty healthy market and surprisingly good environment. Surprising, for me, because I had some stereotypes of what it would be like.


I haven't been to Colombia for business in a few years but I never had problems there. What are you looking to know? If you want to know about their ink, printing, and other coatings markets I don't think I can help you at all. They had a nice competitive prepaid mobile phone market though.

[Anti-Bunny]

Infamous Republican hit man Roger Stone was directly involved in the downfall of Clinton campaign chief strategist Mark Penn. Information printed by conservative columnist Robert Novak last Saturday that Penn's company—Burson Marsteller—was kiting $3 million worth of polling bills in possible violation of the federal campaign finance laws, was supplied by Stone....Stone was also the person who leaked word of Penn's contract last week with the Colombian government to help strategize for a free trade agreement (note: which Hillary Clinton opposes). While Penn stepped down from the post of chief strategist over the weekend, he clearly remains involved in Clinton's inner circle.

Last month Stone was credited by national media sources as the person who tipped off the feds to now-resigned NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's involvement with a high-priced prostitution ring...
More here.. with a video.. (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125876.html)

[Aeon221]

There is no reason to believe that a free trade pact would be exploitative.. Aside from the irrational argument that 'free trade is bad', which is based on the argument that smaller, poorer countries only have stuff they want to buy and nothing they can sell to the rest of the world to balance things out with. Columbia has plenty of goods to export as well as all manner of natural resources.

Well, as it happens there are in fact a few issues (from an economic standpoint) with bilateral free trade agreements, and most professors I have are in favor of them only as a means of pushing forward free trade through the backdoor. A lot of these issues are the same as in customs unions, but you can really boil the whole issue down to FTAs supporting purchasing from a producer who is not lowest cost because of a preferential tax structure, thus distorting the market and creating inefficiencies.

Given a choice between no free trade and FTAs, I'll take an FTA. But not because I think it is a good solution, only a less bad one.



Here's a really crappy example I made up just now to illustrate this point:

Two nations, Bog and Cog, sign a bilateral FTA that (obviously) does not include a third nation, Dog. Previously, all nations had the same 10% import tariffs, but now tariffs only apply to exports/imports relating to Dog.

Prior to the FTA, Bog had imported all its wheat from Dog, because Dog was able to produce more cheaply than Cog. Post FTA, Bog imports all its wheat from Cog because, even though Dog produces more cheaply, Cog's exports are not subject to tariffs and can be sold for less than Dog's, cutting it out of the market. Since this is a competitive market, and demand is perfectly elastic, only a tiny change in price is necessary for Cog to clear Dog out of the market, and therefore preventing any real gains in efficiency. The decline in price becomes more marked as price elasticity of demand decreases (or, in other words, as markets become less and less competitive), but it will never reach a point equal to or lower than the potential price of a tariff free Dog's exports.

We can generalize from here to see that an FTA will harm lower cost producers in nations that are not party to an FTA, while providing benefits to consumers that could have been more easily reached by lowering tariffs across the board.

[Tankero]

On Columbia - does anyone else have any actual business experience with the country? We just had a trip down there, looking at selling some polymeric materials into their ink, printing, and other coatings markets, and it appeared to be a pretty healthy market and surprisingly good environment. Surprising, for me, because I had some stereotypes of what it would be like.

What sort of questions do you have? There's a lot of printed media and textile business in Colombia, and more than a healthy dose of regulation (and taxes), so doing that type of business there would be relatively safe and profittable.

[Jason McCullough]

There is no reason to believe that a free trade pact would be exploitative.

Other than the entire economic history of the United States in regards to South America? We have a long history of overthrowing governments our banana companies don't like, union-busting, death squads, and vaporizing the environment down there. Maybe this specific agreement is all happiness and light, but that's certainly not my first guess. Free trade sometimes is a good idea, but there's a high hurdle to get over in South America to convince me, that's for sure.

Back on topic, people on the left don't like Mark Penn because he rarely pushes for liberal values and is always mysteriously involved with the forces of evil.

[triggercut]

My point is that he had a good repuation as a strategist before this election, since he was a key player for Bill in both his presidential runs and for Hillary in the run for the Senate. He may be blowing this one, but then I also haven't seen any better ideas of what Hillary is supposed to have done. Once Obama adopted most of the same policies, it really came down to personality and such, and she clearly wasn't winning on those.

Wrong perception.

There are a lot of people inside and outside the Democratic Party who think Mark Penn is a stupid, worthless, blowhard piece of shit. The Clintons love him, because Penn was the guy who stood by them in the difficult years of 1995-96; they (wrongly, many believe) give him credit for Bill's re-election in '96. Most everyone else looks back at the '96 elections and sees the Republicans running a terrible candidate (Senator Dole) against one of the smartest, most gifted politicians in memory.

Penn also ran Hillary's Senate campaign--the one where she faced Rick Lazio, who was a last-minute fill-in after Giuliani dropped out. Lazio was a terrible campaigner and had zero name recognition and had no money to compete with Clinton. Penn also ran her 2006 Senatorial campaign. Quick: name the guy she ran against. No googling. Don't worry, I'm not sure there are people in her opponent's family who remember him running.

Compare Penn's "brilliance" at running a campaign to Rove winning the White House twice for the President. Or, take a look at Begala and Carville, who managed to get Wofford elected against Dick Thornburgh in PA in '88, and then got Clinton elected against an incumbent in '92. Those are examples of brilliant campaign management.

In conclusion: Penn has run three campaigns that pretty much anyone posting in this forum could've run and won--and with each one Mark Penn's self-promoting agenda has gotten louder and louder. In reality, he's an incompetent boob; David Plouffe and David Axelrod have consistently whipped his ass and out-strategized him in the primary season. Penn is to the Clintons as Rasputin is to the Romanovs.

[BlueJackalope]

Nice post. I didn't know where Penn came from, things make sense now.

To give him credit for Clinton beating Dole is ridiculous, Dole opened up his campaign by yelling at Katie Couric (America's Sweetheart) on National Television because she didn't like smoking enough.

Great guy, War hero Kerry could have beat him (well...maybe not Kerry).

[triggercut]

Nice post. I didn't know where Penn came from, things make sense now.

To give him credit for Clinton beating Dole is ridiculous, Dole opened up his campaign by yelling at Katie Couric (America's Sweetheart) on National Television because she didn't like smoking enough.

Great guy, War hero Kerry could have beat him (well...maybe not Kerry).

Yeah, I respect Dole, and if I don't agree with his politics, that's the only negative I had against him...other than he had no chance against Clinton, and didn't seem to care, either.

By the '96 election cycle, people had gotten rather fed up with Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America", and the backlash against that--as well as the matchup--meant that it was Clinton's race to lose.

[Anti-Bunny]

Other than the entire economic history of the United States in regards to South America? We have a long history of overthrowing governments our banana companies don't like, union-busting, death squads, and vaporizing the environment down there. Maybe this specific agreement is all happiness and light, but that's certainly not my first guess.

The only reason Colombia is doing as well as they are now is because of the free market structural reforms insisted upon by the IMF, strong exports to the United States and, more recently, Uribe's very fiscally conservative government. Before this, they were the poster child for why social welfare programs can be a really shitty idea.


Free trade sometimes is a good idea, but there's a high hurdle to get over in South America to convince me, that's for sure.

heh

[Tankero]

Uh....

Where the fuck do you get those ideas? Really, where? The agrarian sector has been in the shit. Pests and bad coffee prices internationally (along with a weak dollar now!) are killing exporters while the internal war is consuming a helluvalot of the countryside! The cities were damn-near paralyzed by the amount of people who were pouring in, fleeing from the violence! While the economy is out from under the ghost of a credit crunch that is -still- evicting people with debt from thirty years ago, now the "Narco-economy" is crashing as well; too much luxury goods as a result of artificial wealth that wasn't subject to marginal reasoning.

Doing well? Like shit Colombia is 'doing well'; some very limited sectors were booming due to the money pouring into the illegal drug trade. Very little infrastructural investment was done, but there were all these ultra-expensive apartment buildings going up, pushing the prices of construction out of the reach of more generalized construction. THAT, now, is crashing as well.

And Social Welfare? What you're talking about is rulings from the constitutional court (est. 1991 along with the new constitution) passing veredicts that were not subject to economic realities, such as mandating certain human rights to be fully funded. Those were as much social welfare programs as pigs are bacon factories.

What Uribe has managed to do is convert the type of corruption that exists in the government to one that, at least, keeps the money IN the country rather than letting it bleed out, which is all fine and good, until you realize that it IS establishing a minimal oligarchy while large swathes of the countryside are either deserted, mined, or being used as Coca plantations.

Further and further you prove to me that you're a shrill ball of uncontainable willful "good fences make good neighbors" ball of misinformation. Good fucking God.

[BlueJackalope]

Good Article from Michele Cottle, who clearly has some sources in Hillary's campaign.

http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/story.html?id=2e8c710e-8b44-48ac-aa57-ef641637f07c


Then came Monica. Clinton needed his pollster to float possible damage-control strategies without everyone else around the White House knowing (and leaking) what was going on; for Penn to do this, the president had to entrust him with some of the juicier details of his predicament in order to prepare for the worst. "So you're starting from a point of confidentiality that nobody else has," notes a Penn colleague from that time. As impeachment loomed, Penn counseled Clinton to stay focused on reassuring Americans that he was still hard at work for them, partisan distractions be damned. When at last Clinton emerged from the firestorm singed but alive, Penn once more enjoyed the credit. By then, he had proved himself not only strategically savvy, but also loyal and discreet--two attributes absolutely necessary for access into Hillary's inner-circle in particular.

How's that for Shakespeare? Hillary hires the guy 'cause he kept his mouth closed about Bill's straying. Also, another gimme, what was he going to tell Bill to do - pound on a podium, bald-face lie to America and wave his finger at us?

[Sarkus]

Yeah, I respect Dole, and if I don't agree with his politics, that's the only negative I had against him...other than he had no chance against Clinton, and didn't seem to care, either.

By the '96 election cycle, people had gotten rather fed up with Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America", and the backlash against that--as well as the matchup--meant that it was Clinton's race to lose.

I always thought the problem with Dole in '96 was that he was the antithesis of what had worked for the Republicans in '92. Almost all the new Republican's in congress in '92 and '94 were outsiders. It was the ultimate stupidity to nominate Dole, the ultimate insider because of how long he had been in congress (not to mention his '76 run as VP).

Anyway, my perception of Penn is based on the general media coverage, which has presented him as one of the key political advisors of the Clintons, and as someone who is held in high regard. As usual with the general media, that may not be the whole story.

If he's such a loser, I guess it's just another piece of evidence that Hillary doesn't seem to have much of a knack for picking the key people around her, which is bad for a presidential candidate.

[triggercut]

Over at TIME's Swampland blog, Karen Tumulty recalls a story she wrote back in '99 just before Gore fired him from *his* campaign.


While a bloated, imperial operation could hardly be expected to pick up on warning signs, Gore insiders particularly fault Mark Penn, the lead among Gore's half a dozen pollsters. Penn shares his energies with the President, Hillary Clinton and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. Over and over, Penn told the Vice President that Bradley posed little or no threat, that Bush was not as far ahead as public polls suggested and that most voters were confusing the Texas Governor with his father. At one point, when Penn was insisting that Gore was no farther than 10 points behind Bush, a campaign official quietly asked another pollster to check Penn's work. The number came back: Gore down by 18. Penn declined to be interviewed but let it be known through an intermediary that his position is secure.

Mark Penn is a tool.

[arctangent]

Over at TIME's Swampland blog, Karen Tumulty recalls a story she wrote back in '99 just before Gore fired him from *his* campaign.



Mark Penn is a tool.

Or, Mark Penn was actually working for the RNC or the Bush people to sabotage the Gore campaign, in which case he would be... brilliant, in an evil sort of way.

[Rightbug]

I always thought the problem with Dole in '96 was that he was the antithesis of what had worked for the Republicans in '92. Almost all the new Republican's in congress in '92 and '94 were outsiders. It was the ultimate stupidity to nominate Dole, the ultimate insider because of how long he had been in congress (not to mention his '76 run as VP).

Not to get too side tracked here but I've been thinking all along that there are interesting parallels between Dole and McCain. Before the '96 campaign got underway in earnest, I was extremely concerned about Dole. Here was an elder statesman for the Republican party with tons of experience and a reputation as a respected moderate with a long record of wins in his Senate races. Once the race between he and Clinton started in earnest, however, Dole wilted under the spotlight. He was too old, he had a hair trigger temper and he ran a terrible campaign, making one misstep after another and constantly putting his foot in his mouth.

McCain was out of the race in early December for a reason. He only won the nomination by default. He really strikes me as Dole part 2 which is why I'm anxious for the Democratic primary process to wrap up so the focus can shift to the race between Obama and McCain.

[Jason McCullough]

Contents of said trade deal (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_colombia_trade_deal.php). There's jack shit in it for Columbia; it's us shoving neoliberalism down their throats.

[Hanacker]

Not to pick on you specifically, but I keep seeing this pop up in various threads - Columbia is a district or a university; Colombia is a country.

[JeffL]

Actually, there's quite a bit in it for Columbia if they want to have a free flow of trade with the U.S. For example, our biggest issue in freely working with companies in Columbia in the same way we do with, say, Germany or Japan, etc. is the IP issue: in the current situation, you can take a new technology into Columbia and they can simply violate all patent rights and completely screw you over, which of course makes you not give them access to the better/new technologies and prevents you from from discussing with their companies deals and ways to work together in the same way you would with other countries in the world that follow the standard world trade IP conventions.

The restriction in Columbia that prevents you from hiring U.S. nationals if you open a branch or plant or whatever is a big issue, as most companies will routinely bring in U.S. nationals when you start up to teach and run things until you get local talent up to speed, plus you usually want a mix of folks in the plants/labs/offices.

Prohibiting the really bad child labor practices that occurs in Columbia is surely something everyone would want in a business partner. Same for establishing some basic environmental laws (we weren't real crazy about the dumping of toxic waste in rivers, etc. in Columbia.) In addition, the U.S. agrees to provide about $150 million in aid to help Columbia abide with some of these new guidelines.

Providing for 3rd party review and transparency in disputes helps get around some of the back alley palm greasing to resolve legitimate disputes.

Certainly there are also a couple of aspects that make it easier for the U.S. to do business and some benefits for the U.S., but I think that's kind of the idea of a trade agreement, to give both sides something. This is hardly in the category of what we did in Hawaii a couple of hundred years ago, for example.

[Jason McCullough]

Actually, there's quite a bit in it for Columbia if they want to have a free flow of trade with the U.S. For example, our biggest issue in freely working with companies in Columbia in the same way we do with, say, Germany or Japan, etc. is the IP issue: in the current situation, you can take a new technology into Columbia and they can simply violate all patent rights and completely screw you over, which of course makes you not give them access to the better/new technologies and prevents you from from discussing with their companies deals and ways to work together in the same way you would with other countries in the world that follow the standard world trade IP conventions.

You know we basically built our original economy by stealing British trade secrets, right?

On another angle, none of the good things you reference nothing in that treaty that has to be in a treaty - they're basically presents to themselves, right? They can change all of those things if they feel like it through their regular voting process - why, even the child labor and environmental sops they chucked in. A theory I've seen bandied about is that their right-of-center government is trying to make the changes harder to repeal by future governments by putting them in a treaty, rather than just a law.

Normally you'd assume a free trade treaty would involve the two sides giving each other something. The only item in there that qualifies as the US giving Colombia something is a vague statement about more access to import textiles to us. Meanwhile, US corporations get everything they want.

I find the third-party arbitration for investment disputes particularly outrageous. Imagine the US putting up with signing a treaty saying investment disputes had to be resolved by international third parties, rather than our courts system.


This is hardly in the category of what we did in Hawaii a couple of hundred years ago, for example.

115 years ago; we overthrew the government of Hawaii in 1893 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_monarchy). A more recent example of Hawaii-style antics would be the CIA overthrowing the Government of Guatamela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guatemala#Operation_PBSUCCESS) at the behest of United Fruit back in 1954.

[Dirt]

Columbia gave us Shakira. Merrrow.

[JeffL]

You know we basically built our original economy by stealing British trade secrets, right?

On another angle, none of the good things you reference nothing in that treaty that has to be in a treaty - they're basically presents to themselves, right? They can change all of those things if they feel like it through their regular voting process - why, even the child labor and environmental sops they chucked in. A theory I've seen bandied about is that their right-of-center government is trying to make the changes harder to repeal by future governments by putting them in a treaty, rather than just a law.

Normally you'd assume a free trade treaty would involve the two sides giving each other something. The only item in there that qualifies as the US giving Colombia something is a vague statement about more access to import textiles to us. Meanwhile, US corporations get everything they want.

I find the third-party arbitration for investment disputes particularly outrageous. Imagine the US putting up with signing a treaty saying investment disputes had to be resolved by international third parties, rather than our courts system.

115 years ago; we overthrew the government of Hawaii in 1893 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_monarchy). A more recent example of Hawaii-style antics would be the CIA overthrowing the Government of Guatamela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guatemala#Operation_PBSUCCESS) at the behest of United Fruit back in 1954.

First, we're not talking about the 1700s. IP issues are very real and very important these days. If you don't go into this with a bias that we're trying to screw Columbia, this is a pretty reasonable agreement. IP is important enough that it was a very real issue that had to be resolved in China because it was common knowledge that China would steal your IP and had no intent on enforcing IP rights within China. It was enough of an issue that one large economic meeting I was at in Beijing a few years ago had an entire session on that issue. It was only when agreements were put in place to which China agreed that they would abide by and enforce IP law that many companies were willing to build and put in technical centers and higher tech products into China. Making this an issue in a trade agreement is a good deal and makes sense.

I also can't see why you would stretch to make us making them stop things like child labor in an agreement a "bad thing." Yeah, that's the big bad evil American Big Business for you, forcing those guys to stop child labor and oppressive business practices before we'll do business, those scoundrels!

As far as the "only thing in it for them" - while it's not a trillion dollars, we do agree to give them a hundred and fifty million bucks to help them with some of the changes. The other thing in it for them is a lot of money from investments, capital we'll put in there, etc. I guarantee (from first hand knowledge of what we're doing) that Columbia will get a lot in terms of great jobs, tech training, capital, etc. if we really develop a free flowing relationship.

The third party arbitration is pretty much required and goes both ways - we also have to abide by them on the disputes in that nation, and it's needed because of the way many things go on down there. While I can't write anything that would disclose details in a public forum, we were basically told in one situation in which the Columbian company was holding a large amount of product we'd shipped and suddenly decided they'd changed their mind on what they were going to pay, and thus it was being held in "quarantine", that if we paid a certain person $30,000 the problem might go away.

[Jason McCullough]

First, we're not talking about the 1700s. IP issues are very real and very important these days.

They were important then too, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United _States).


The textile industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_industry), which had previously relied upon labor-intensive production methods, was also rife with potential for mechanization. In the late 18th century, the English textile industry had adopted the spinning jenny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_jenny), water frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_frame), and spinning mule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_mule) which greatly improved the efficiency and quality of textile manufacture, but were closely guarded by the British government which forbade their export or the emigration of those who were familiar with the technology. Samuel Slater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater), an apprentice in one of the largest textile factories in England, immigrated to the United States in 1789 upon learning that American states were paying bounties to British expatriates with a knowledge of cotton machinery.[10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_history_of_the_United _States#cite_note-9)

IP law is one of those areas were the rich countries solemnly talk about how important it is, but every last one of them stole the existing rich countries blind when they were industrializing. So color me a bit unconvinced.


I also can't see why you would stretch to make us making them stop things like child labor in an agreement a "bad thing."

Other than me carefully not saying that it was a "bad thing," yeah.

On the rest of your comments, all of your conclusions seem to flow from the assumptions that Bush administration officials and United States corporations have fundamentally good intentions in this area and ignoring our long history of exploitation and abuse, including in trade treaties, in the region.

On the other angle of "what's in it for US citizens" - nothing, unless they're already rich enough to own significant amounts of financial services companies. Assuming the textile thing actually amounts to anything, the few remaining textiles employees get yet another kick in the head, because we have virtually nothing in the way of trade assistance programs.