Bailout Watch 170: When Bush And Obama Meet In The Middle…
When we reported on the Bush-Obama meeting yesterday, we told you that the meeting was “friendly,” but ultimately unproductive. Well, we were right about half of that, and no prizes for guessing which half. The New York Times cited unidentified sources in its coverage as saying that Bush was ready to support accelerated support for the Detroit Three on the condition that Obama convince Senate Democrats to support passage of the Columbian Free Trade Agreement which they are currently blocking. Needless to say this was a non-starter. Obama has openly opposed the Columbian FTA throughout his campaign, not only to curry favor with the unions protect US jobs, but also because in his words “the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.” Having made this human rights argument in no less public a venue than the presidential debates, was there ever any chance that he would accept Bush’s compromise? Of course not. But now Bush is steamed that this detail slipped out, blaming Obama aides for leaking the smoke-filled-room compromise to the press. Obama’s transition team now says that “there was no quid pro quo in the conversation,” but as the US News And World Report Political Bulletin reports (in exhaustive detail) this is turning into the first major rift between the outgoing and incoming presidents. As well as proving that even a bad compromise leaves everyone unhappy.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
Clinton wasn't one compromising in 1992. It changed in 1994, one would imagine, that O-presidente will learn from history.
Uhh... maybe because GM, Ford, and Chrysler will be C11 by the time Obama gets in office.
Bush should negotiate hard. Sure, the Dems control the whole shebang after Jan 20th, but the domestic auto train-wreck has long left the station. The Democrats can't afford to be passive given their union base. But they need bipartisan support because, in the end, regardless of what they do, one (and perhaps another 0.8 of the big 2.8) is going down...