The Latin American Press and some in Congress are calling Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's refusal to bring the negotiated trade agreement between Columbia and the US up for a speedy vote the "Hugo Chávez Rule". Although Speaker Pelosi's intention may be to kowtow to powerful US Trade Unions, the consequence of not ratifying the treaty after Columbia jumped through various hoops required by members of Congress in order for it to be considered may be severe.

To not pass the US-Columbia Free Trade Treaty would be folly for several reasons. First, our ally should be rewarded. Columbia is now stalwart in the war on terrorism and on the narcotrafficking that floods the US blackmarket, (and in some cases finances terror groups). Secondly, many US states with goods and produce to sell in Columbia will be disadvantaged by failure to ratify. Thirdly, and arguably most importantly, failure to ratify strengthens the western hemisphere's most dangerous despot. Quite simply, Hugo Chávez and his ability to undermine liberty and free markets in South America enhances his stated aim to spread "Bolivarian revolution" throughout Latin America. A stronger more prosperous Columbia will be better able to defeat internal threats like FARC, as well as external attempts to destabilize its nascent democracy and economy by Hugo Chávez and his foreign cronies who seek to make inroads in the Western hemisphere. (Think Iran and China).

An interesting sidelight of the issue is the way Democrat Nancy Pelosi's* highly visible action illustrates the difference between the values and policy positions of the Republican leadership and the Democrats during a contentious election year. If this becomes an election issue, how will the parties and their respective candidate present it? How will this complex issue be perceived by the electorate? Will it resonate?

* To her credit, Speaker Pelosi once called Hugo Chávez an "every day thug", although that somewhat underestimates his importance as a world-class thug.

Links 1 and 2 via Lucianne and Drudge

From Ben Smith's blog at the Politico, Barack Obama speaks of small town folks from Pennsylvania and the greater Midwest at a San Francisco fundraiser:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The comments at this post are fascinating. The condescension of Sen. Obama's statement and fundamental lack of respect for the people of whom he is speaking escapes the notice of many of the commenters. Though some take the point of view to task, some take Mr. Smith to task for even making note of it, while others agree with Sen. Obama.

Image: Betty Bowers.com via Benediction Blog

"King of the Empty Suits" from a comment by John FairPlay at the above post. Link via Drudge.

Catholic supporter Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine puts an amazingly Catholic slant on the Obama brand of religiosity in Barack Obama, Man of Faith. His explanations for his support for Sen. Obama will make your head spin as he weaves through the land mines. That is if you're aware of Sen Obama's extreme position toward abortion, including partial-birth abortion, and abortions resulting in live birth. The article is very reminiscent of some of the "he's a great guy and I should know" stuff that appeared before Bill Clinton's election written by various of the Clintonistas. It's at Catholic Online and well worth a read.