Bush's Economic Pom-Poms

"The proposal prompted immediate and heated opposition from leading Democrats, who accused Bush of grandstanding and said the pact is certain to be rejected. Under 'fast-track' rules negotiated with Congress, Bush's move forces lawmakers to conduct an up-or-down vote on the proposed pact within 90 legislative days.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called the agreement 'a continuation of failed policies' that 'have already cost countless American workers their jobs and have done profound harm to U.S. foreign policy.' Reid and other Democrats argue that Colombia has failed to protect labor activists, quell violence and shut down paramilitary groups."

David J. Lynch writes in USA Today: "The president opted to force a congressional vote over the objections of Democrats, who warned the deal may become the first trade agreement ever rejected by Congress. The president's move, which he said was needed to assure that Congress votes before adjourning this year, marked the first time a trade deal has been sent to Capitol Hill without congressional leaders' approval. . . .

"On Monday, some Democratic lawmakers pronounced the measure, which must be voted on before Sept. 26, dead on arrival. Others complained the president should tackle the nation's financial crisis instead. . . .

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., reiterated their opposition to the agreement and called the president's action 'counterproductive.' They complained that Bush has rejected their proposals to extend unemployment benefits, expand children's health care programs, and help distressed homeowners."

James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "No administration has lost a vote on a major free trade pact in Congress, although few have found the task easy.

"But Bush is facing a powerful challenge in seeking House and Senate approval as lawmakers prepare to go before voters concerned about foreign competition for jobs.

"The outcome is made more difficult by Bush's sagging popularity, opposition to the pact by the Democratic presidential contenders and concerns about the U.S. economy.

"All of which brings up this question: Why is he taking the step now, risking angering or embarrassing Colombia with a defeat and dooming the 16-month-old pact's approval?

"Because, Latin America experts and administration officials say, waiting would accomplish nothing, and the clock is running out on his opportunities."

Greg Hitt, Bob Davis and Jose de Cordoba write in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "The White House is betting that it will be able to peel away enough Democrats to win approval -- and if not, the White House can blame Democrats for the loss. Some Democrats may be willing to trade their vote for a Colombia deal as a way to extract White House support for a slew of Democratic initiatives, including expanded jobless benefits, an increase in spending on food stamps and support for a twice-vetoed bill that would expand a health program for low-income children."

Iraq Watch

All eyes today are on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where Bush's chief Iraq standard-bearers, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, are making the case for staying the course. (See yesterday's column, No Closer to Success in Iraq.)