We’ve been discussing the President a lot lately, making attempts to define him as to style, political ideology, and his place along a liberal-conservative continuum.  We’ve taken various positions partially based on issues we care about and have watched closely since the campaign; we argue about what he supported, what we ‘imagined he supported’.  This is Obama on NATFA  and his opposition to the South Korean Free Trade Agreement on 11/13/07:

This is the same President two days ago announcing KORUS, the South Korean Free Trade Agreement:

The President was warmly congratulated by many business leaders and bankers following this announcement:  Jamie Dimon, Vikram Pandit, Tom Donahue, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce,  CEOs of GE, Amway (that cracks me up), etc.

On the other hand, Representative Michael Michaud, co-founder of the House Trade Working Group  is up in arms over the deal, and says his beef with the deal isn't just about beef:

"The House Trade Working Group continues to be vehemently opposed to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Our objections with the KORUS FTA go beyond the issues related to beef. 

"This deeply flawed agreement is likely to exacerbate and accelerate the loss of good jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector, especially in autos, apparel, and electronics.  "Unfortunately, the KORUS FTA would allow Korea to maintain a discriminatory tax structure and other non-tariff barriers, which will keep the Korean market closed to U.S. built automotive products and perpetuate our enormous auto trade imbalance.

"We already have a $14 billion trade deficit with South Korea - almost $12 billion of that in autos and auto parts. This deal will likely jeopardize tens of thousands of U.S. auto jobs, while failing to address the array of formal and informal barriers to the sale of U.S. automobiles in South Korea. 

"Korea is the fifth largest producer and third largest exporter of vehicles in the world and automotive trade between the United States and Korea is totally one-sided. In 2006, Korea exported 554,000 vehicles to the United States. In contrast, the United States only was allowed to export about 4000 vehicles to Korea. As a result, the United States had a nearly $12 billion auto trade deficit with Korea.

"The Korean government has announced that it expects Korea's automotive surplus with the U.S. to grow by $1 billion per year as a result of this trade deal.  This will translate into the loss of tens of thousands of additional automotive jobs for American workers.

"In addition, the KORUS FTA's rules on procurement have the potential to restrict public policy aims that may be met through procurement policies at the federal and state level.  These rules could be used to challenge a variety of important procurement provisions including domestic sourcing preferences, living wage laws and responsible contractor requirements.

"Furthermore, the investment provisions in the agreement could grant foreign investors greater rights than they would enjoy under our domestic law.  The agreement's deeply flawed investor-to-state dispute resolution mechanism contains none of the controls that could limit abuse of this private right of action.

"I am absolutely opposed to the Korea Free Trade Agreement and will continue to be a vocal opponent of this pact.  There is no ‘deal' that could be struck that would get me to support a trade agreement so unfair to our workers."

 Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is probably the most knowledgeable Senator on trade, and will oppose it in its present form.

 Things are apparently blowing up within the AFL-CIO, as Obama and Hilda Solis convinced Bob King of the UAW to back the deal without consulting other members of the AFL-CIO, especially the Steelworkers Union.  That has yet to play out.

 Paul Krugman does not agree that Trade = Jobs as the President maintains.

Like NAFTA and CAFTA, the Korea FTA (KORUS): (From Jane Hamsher, FDL)

• Allows foreign corporations to operate inside the United States under privileged international trade agreements rather than having to obey our laws that apply to our businesses.
• Prohibits us from limiting the size of banks — and thus we give up the right to decide what “too big to fail” is on our own shores
• Prohibits us from banning risky financial goods and services (like derivatives trading), otherwise US taxpayers will have to pay compensation to international companies for the profits they won’t be able to steal reap from engaging in such transactions
• Prohibits us from stopping capital transfers unless the IMF approves – even to fight money laundering and other financial
  crimes
• Bans the government’s ability to adopt “buy American” policies, determining  how US tax dollars can be spent.
• Limits what policies states and localities can establish over land use, and allows any such policies to be attacked in foreign tribunals if they do not conform to the trade pact’s constraints
• Forces the United States to submit to the judgment of foreign tribunals
• Elevates foreign corporations to equal status with the sovereign United States, empowering foreign companies with new rights to sue the U.S. government before the UN and World Bank tribunals, skirting US courts.

 Here’s what the jobs picture looks like:

You decide.