I will try to be more specific, just for you ;-) Actually I think I have been fairly specific about what I like and don't like about the three remaining presidential candidates. No, not necessarily on an issue by issue basis, but we have already been over different approaches to that.

The NY Times is not partisan IMO. It is sometimes portrayed that way by those who don't like unfawning coverage.

What specifically didn't I like about the blog entry? Now I have to read it again? ;-) OK. Apart from the numerous grammatical and spelling errors (you'd think he could at least spell Colombia right in a piece about Colombia), the main problem is giving the misimpression that the bill has been killed. In fact the vote has only been delayed. Also, as I said before, there is no backstory at all to explain what the fuss is about. All I knew after reading the blog post was that Congress did not support the trade bill and this was a Bad Thing.

>Wow. I read your article and I agree it is somewhat more even-handed but still lacking sufficient information on one side and it is pretty obvious which side that is. The NYT is hardly known as an non-partisan source, although I will give them credit for getting closer with that article.
>
>You inferred that the blog was not an acceptable request. Can you point to any specific item or comment on the content in anyway and not just whether or not it was an acceptable source from a journalistic point of view? You seem to avoid specifics to support your case these days Mike - from voting for a president (because of charisma and change but I still don't know which of his changes you support) to current issues. I read supportive comments from you on many Democrats (except Hillary) and even the presidential candidate of your choice but I have yet to read anything specific you support or agree with.
>
>I guess if you won't discuss specifics on anything any more then there is no use discussing any of the issues. I have a problem with 'I like A over B because A has charisma and B is a rat.' yet you never state why B is a rat or A is actually better on the issues or leadership or experience. It brings to mind why some of our forefathers didn't want the common man voting and later on, women. At one time men actually worried that women would only vote based on charisma and appearance and not consider the issues -- exactly what you are doing based on your posts here Mike.
>
>Ok, I'll stay out of the political discussions with you from now on Mike. Bring on football! :o)
>
>
>
>
>
>>I read it. It's OK but more of a tract than an overview. I have not been following this issue closely and that blog post didn't get me up to speed much. So I went looking for something that gave me more of the who-what-where-when. Here is an evenhanded article which presents both POVs without advocating one of them. The way I remember it from journalism school, that's how you're supposed to do it....
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/washington/10cnd-trade.html?_r=1&st=cse&sq=colombia&scp=1&oref=slogin
>>
>>
>>>I have, but since it is available on the news and online, including her speech on the subject, I won't post that. I am curious about your opinion on this:
>>>
>>>http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/04/killing-american-jobs-pelosi-style.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is a tough issue to paint in partisan terms. Playing games with arcane legislative rules is not a new art, nor is it limited to one party. You can't point the finger at Democrats when it comes to fillibusters, to use one example.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't seen any mention of why Pelosi did what she did. She viewed the trade pact with Colombia as another step in the flight of American jobs to countries with lower labor costs. This is not an issue that seems to particularly concern people who own companies, but it does concern people who work for companies. Or used to.
>>>>
>>>>>That's what worries me - there could be repercussions on other treaty negotiations going forward because it makes us look untrustworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>This was a good treaty - it's unbelievable that Pelosi and others played politics with it. I'm getting a little sick and tired of the current Congress changing rules as it fits them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Changing the rules after the fact seems to be a trend with this bunch. However, this time it is not simply affecting a house vote's timing or the Democratic primary, this time they're damaging the ability of the President (office not current occupant) to engage in good-faith treaty negotiations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America."
>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778566399303309.html