The Hugo Dems

WSJ has an editorial on what it labels the "Chavez Democrats." WSJ correctly castigates the Dems for trying to slap down Colombia during its high stakes confrantation with Hugo. They also note that the "soft power" lovers of the left seem to have forgotten what soft power is about:

Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that "they don't have the votes for it, it's not going to come on the floor," adding that "what they [the White House] don't understand it's not the facts on the ground, it's the politics that's in the air."

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don't want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue.

Unfortunately the ed. goes overboard bringing up the supposed fraud of the Hugo recall of 2004. Fraud or not he still had overwhelming support at the time. It was unlikely that he would have been defeated in that instance. WSJ singles out my personal favorites Delahunt and Dodd as being particularly close to Hugo:

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of "soft power" and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.

Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez's August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela's oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they'd be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect "trade unionists." In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is
whether they're going to choose Colombia -- or Hugo Chávez.

Obama and Other Hagel Loving Dems

Obama is making noises that he would be willing to consider a Republican in his cabinet. Retiring Chuck Hagel, taking McCain's place as every Dems favorite Rep, was mentioned. I'm sure it is just a coincidence but insufferable Chris Dodd mentioned Hagel today in the NYT.

There is an interview with Hagel in the latest issue of The American Interest (sub. required). At one point he sounds rather Obama-ish, although he actually means it while Obama, the most leftist member of the Senate (take that Ted!), seems to only pay lip service to the end of partisanship:

AI: With 11 years gone and one more to go in the Senate, how do you think back on your time here? Some say you’ve moved from many standard conservative positions to more centrist ones. You think that’s a fair description?

Senator Hagel: It is, and part of it has to do with what I’ve learned about the complexity of most of the issues we face as a society. We’re rarely confronted with easy calls, with a clearly “right” and a clearly “wrong” side. Life generally is not that way. But some people, from both parties, like to live in a world of absolutes, and that has polarized politics and strangled any bipartisan progress. People won’t work toward any kind of compromise when they feel they’re giving up their values, standards and beliefs. It has become clear to me, over the course of my 11 years working in this sausage factory here, that without any consensus on how to behave in order to move our country forward, we’re essentially paralyzed. I’ve moved toward the middle because that’s where I think the effective solutions are.

I’ve also learned to better appreciate the importance of personal relationships in how things work here. I’ve seen this President of the United States establish virtually no personal relationships, and it has cost the country. His position has been, “It’s either my way or the highway, because I’m the Decider.” But when you don’t have the lubricant of personal relationships in a democratic government—any form of government, really, but especially a two-party democracy—the gears will lock up, and the system will break down. That’s what has happened, and both sides are to blame.

It’s a very distressing dynamic, but I think the next president will understand that and act on that. Better personal relationships will form, and we’ll see a bipartisan cabinet, among other changes. It’s not a matter of choice, because the challenges facing this country are so immense that we can’t afford another four years of paralysis.

Holding My Nose...

The hardest thing about being anti-embargo is the company I keep. Christopher Dodd, erstwhile candidate for the Democratic nomination for president and a commie lover from way back, is calling for the end of the embargo. I didn't think there was a doubt where he stood. I'm actually surprised that he isn't calling for a free-trade pact with Fidel.

Previously the Dodd campaign had put out release on Dodd's support for removing restrictions on travel to Cuba. Typical B.S. statement topped off with this winner.

The Island of Cuba is in the throes of a transition to a post-Castro Cuba. A US policy of staying the course leaves us on the sides as the future of Cuba is being written. It is time to engage before it is too late to have a positive influence on the political landscape which is rapidly taking shape there. In a Dodd administration the United States will engage with the Cuban people in support of a peaceful transition to democracy.

"Throes of transition?" What transition? Nothing substantive has changed...nothing. And seriously what is the danger of being "on the sides" while the future of Cuba is written? It is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, what do we as a country lose in not dealing with Cuba during its "throes of transition?" Seriously, what candidate is going to say that it is not willing to "engage the Cuban people in support of a peaceful transition to democracy?" Can't it be said that is also an accurate description of what W. is trying to do for Cuba?

Hat Tip the commie loving Steve Clemons at Washington Note and Havana Note.