Personally, I think another free trade deal at the current time is a bad idea. And as I wrote last night I think Pelosi was making the right moves demanding something of Bush before a vote and not accepting promises after. We all know how well Bush keeps his promises. So, Pelosi did it today. She hosed the president. And I disagree with Nelson: I think she did a good thing. But I'll let you read Nelson and decide for yourself:

Today's other "bomb" was exploded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As promised, the Democrats un-did Fast Track by a 224-195 vote, in order to avoid being forced to start the 90-day clock on the Colombia FTA.

This is either (a) a one-off only aimed at forcing negotiations (Pelosi); or (b) the most stupid and irresponsible thing the Dems have ever done on trade, an act which will undermine US trade negotiations now and forever more (Republicans, and many worried observers).

Our advice: until demonstrated otherwise, take Pelosi at her word, and remember Ronald Reagan..."trust, but verify".

TRADE...as we said in the Summary, either this is just a very interesting, very hard-ball negotiation which is purely specific to the complex interaction this year of trade and politics, OR...

It's the single most irresponsible thing the Dems have done on trade since we arrived in Washington as an intern, in the summer of 1966.

(That's pretty much what President Bush said following the vote.)

For what it's worth, we have reliable Republican sources who say that the decision to force the issue was made personally by the President, and that it was made basically for the most personal of reasons, as he has been wont to do:

First, Bush considers his actions to be required to meet his personal promise to his colleague, President Uribe of Colombia, that he would get a vote on the FTA. This in itself is sufficient, our source notes, given Bush's known psychological makeup.

Second, Bush considers that it is Speaker Pelosi and the Dems who have shown bad faith, since it is his view that they have consistently refused to keep their promises to deal, and to vote on Colombia.

So in the Bush world of good guys/bad guys, the Colombia FTA became yet another test of wills for this President, our source explains, and efforts to warn the White House of the likely boomerang effect of forcing the issue were rebuffed.

But we will otherwise spare you our rendition of the invective being visited upon Pelosi and the 224 Dems who claim they joined in "suspending" the Fast Track "rule" of 90-legislative days to complete action on the Colombia FTA.

We feel the key element in understanding how we got to this point, however, is mutual conclusions of bad faith.

In a mirror of the President's mental process, Pelosi and other Democratic Leaders argue that today's step was made necessary by what they see as bad faith on the part of the Administration, which, they feel, has forced this situation by failing to meet the various demands Dems have had on the table as far back as May 10, last year.

(Republican Loyal Readers...please hold your fire, we are repeating the Dems' arguments, not saying that they are Divine Revelation!)

The central point for now, and the final judgment on whether this is an interesting episode, or doom, is to see IF the Administration and the Dems finally do what they've mutually managed to avoid since last year...actually set a time for a real negotiation, and then sit down to really negotiate.

With all due respect to friends on all sides of this, we, personally, are sick and tired of being assured by each that THEY have said a million times they are willing to meet and to deal, it's the OTHER side which hasn't, or isn't.

We will stipulate that each side has, at some point or the other, made good faith offers which, for various reasons, have either been not reciprocated, or not understood to be in good faith.

We would respectfully suggest that, following the actions of this week, we are now at the point where it would be appropriate to say, "put up, or shut up".

Anyhow, here's Ways & Means chair Rangel on why:

"Let me start by saying that I doubt anyone in this body has more compassion than I for the people of Colombia, with whom I've worked through the years on counter-narcotics and economic development issues.

"This rule is necessary because the President violated protocol under trade promotion authority that has served so well in the past. He specifically ignored the views of this body, instead choosing to take a gamble and demand a vote within 90 days.

"Today, we remove this artificial time constraint and restore a period of consultation so that the agreement is not forced to a vote in an environment that will not allow it to succeed. By removing the imposed timeframe, we create an atmosphere that would allow members to understand the bill and facilitate discussion to resolve the outstanding issues."

-0-

As many able news summaries point out today, the Dems and Labor cite statistics showing that thousands of Colombian labor leaders have been murdered since 2001, and that while the relative numbers were down last year ("only" 24 actually murdered) they appear to be going up this year (17 killed so far...).

How this situation can be "resolved" through negotiations here in Washington is not clear to us, but as we said in the Summary...the Dems SAY they are only doing this to force real negotiations with the Administration.

So we say...let the games begin.

For the Record, here's what Chairman Rangel said today about the technical justification for the vote:

· Today's rule change would remove the fast-track timeline for the Colombia free-trade agreement -- simply returning to Congress the rightful constitutional role in scheduling consideration of measures.

· The fast track procedures (as set forth in section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974) expressly recognize "the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House."

· The fast track procedures require both chambers to act on a trade pact within 90 legislative days after the implementing legislation is submitted, but it specifies that those procedures and timetable are rules of the chambers and may be changed at any time.

· Specifically, the measure approved by the House today suspends the requirements that the Ways and Means Committee act within 45 days, that the House vote within 15 days after that, and that there be a highly privileged motion to bring up the measure.

· Under the rules change, the House would consider the measure at a time of its choosing. This does not address Senate fast track procedures. This measure does not change the fact the agreement is unamendable in the House.

In other words, Rangel seeks to make clear, today's vote is NOT an all-time precedent, one which the Dems will come to rue when one of THEIR presidents has a trade deal stuffed down his or her throat, after the fact.

To the Dem's charge of bad faith...as an observer of both sides, we can report what we think is a genuine misunderstanding, if one born of the bad faith generated during the President's first term, and the odious rule of then-Ways & Means chairman Bill Thomas.

Republicans generally, and this White House specifically, do genuinely seem to think the deal negotiated May 10, last year, by Rangel, USTR Sue Schwab, trade subcommittee chair Sandy Levin, and others, was a binding deal which - on balance - cleared the way for consideration of Colombia.

Democrats generally - and we heard IN DETAIL about this last night from a directly involved staff player - feel they made very clear to the Administration before and after May 10 that there would have to be specific improvements, especially in the labor safety problems, before Colombia would be ready for Floor action.

So we suspect that, as Cool Hand Luke heard, at one point, "what we have here is, a failure to communicate"...and not a deliberate effort at bad faith, on either part.

That's the benign, and, we think, on balance, the more or less accurate reading of the situation.

At the same time, we will stipulate it is absolutely understandable why Republicans would feel Pelosi is a hypocrite, and that she has no intention of allowing Colombia (or any other FTA!) up for a vote this year....just listen to the nonsense being spouted by Obama and Clinton about NAFTA, and the atrocious failure of the Democrats to conduct a serious debate about globalization and what to do about it.

Anyone have thoughts?