Buzzfeed is reporting that Senate Dems blocked the trade bill:
WASHINGTON — In one fell swoop Tuesday, Senate Democrats successfully blocked President Obama’s trade legislation and handed him one of his biggest defeats in recent memory.
Republicans are kvetching about Obama not being able to round up votes from his own party and Democrats throwing the president under the bus, but most of them support the bill, so that’s their self-serving spin. More:
Senate Democrats, however argued it’s not the presidents fault. “I don’t think it’s a reflection on the president … I think it’s just a difference if views” on trade, said Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin said after the vote.
Tuesday’s failed vote is a victory for unions, activists, and progressive lawmakers who have mounted an aggressive opposition campaign against the White House’s efforts to push through a “fast track” that would allow the president to negotiate trade deals and give Congress a simple up-or-down vote.
A CNN report on the issue quotes Senator Warren in an NPR interview this morning as follows:
“We cannot continue to run this country for the top 10 percent. We can’t keep pushing through trade deals that benefit multi-national companies at the expense of workers,” she said.
“Government cannot continue to be the captive of the rich and the powerful. Working people cannot be forced to give up more and more as they get squeezed harder and harder.”
Well, yeah. But it seems like deals that would benefit regular people typically have one shot at making it through Congress while measures that extend the influence of the wealthy get endless bites at the apple.
So is this really the end of it? Does anyone know what happens next? Aside from headlines about “Dems in Disarray,” I mean?
UPDATE: The NYT has a better explanation of what happened than Buzzfeed’s initial report (shocking!). An excerpt:
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats handed President Obama a stinging rebuke on Tuesday, blocking consideration of legislation granting their own president accelerated power to complete a major trade accord with Asia.
The Senate voted 52-45 on a procedural motion to begin debating the bill to give the president “trade promotion authority,” eight votes short of the 60 needed to proceed. Republicans and pro-trade Democrats said they would try to negotiate a trade package that could clear that threshold.
But the vote Tuesday presented Mr. Obama what might be a no-win situation. He may have to accept trade enforcement provisions he does not want in order to propel the trade legislation through the Senate, but those same provisions might doom the Pacific trade negotiations that legislation is supposed to lift.
Sounds like the fast-track provision has been defeated, but whether or not the trade bill ultimately comes up for a vote is an open question, according to the NYT. Fair traders can now force concessions from free traders, but that might doom the negotiations, says the linked article. We shall see.
Corner Stone
CNN
Corner Stone
Of course it’s not the end of it, look at who most wants it to happen. People like Peter G. Peterson, the man who has been haunting SocSec since about the time of its creation.
As to what’s next, I’m sure there is some form of parliamentary procedure to be pulled to get it back on its feet, toot swede.
Corner Stone
I think we’ll also get a lot of frantic pieces of the rise of the Populist Left, and how redistributionary and scary they all are.
Along with a few Rahm-type nominal D’s taking thinly veiled shots at the “Warren Wing” of the Democrats and how they betrayed Obama.
ETA, maybe they could get Robert Gibbs hauled out of the bathtubs full of money he bathes in to come on and take some more shots at people.
Arclite
Sweet.
Hey Obama. Make the damn thing public, then we’ll talk.
Villago Delenda Est
Good. B. Barry Bamz is wrong, wrong, RONG about TPP. It sucks. It’s an attempt by the parasite shit to fuck over everyone. Screw them.
Keith G
Of course this is not the bloody end. This was a vote on fast-track and if the administration gets it’s head out of it’s ass, it can find a way forward. There is a good editorial in the NYT today discussing this very point.
JPL
@Arclite: yup
Kay
Trade adjustment assistance is funding for workers and communities displaced or disrupted by trade deals.
The currency manipulation provisions they want they have wanted for a long time. Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman actually worked on a seperate bipartisan currency manipulation bill about 6 months ago.
Harry Reid said as far back as April that Democrats should block it unless all 3 provisions they want went along with fast track.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/241770-trade-vote-set-for-defeat-dealing-tough-blow-to-obama?utm_source=social&utm_medium=Hootsuite&utm_campaign=UFCW#.VVJHE6XxJX0.twitter
Belafon
Bad information: “Senate Democrats successfully blocked President Obama’s trade legislation.” No they didn’t. They blocked the vote that would have allowed the trade agreement to be fast tracked, meaning no amending. The administration will finish its negotiations over the TPP and present the agreement. Without fast track, it can be amended, meaning that the changed will have to be taken back to the other countries. With or without fast track authority, there still would have been a second vote from Congress.
Keith G
@Corner Stone:
David Brooks (again in the NYT) already has this covered. Although he is not talking about trade, he is lecturing us about liberal over-reach and even mentions Mayor Rahm glowingly.
Belafon
@Arclite: Again, the TPP will be made public when the agreement is finished. Passing fast track authority would not have changed that, nor would it have changed the vote on the agreement. The difference is whether or not it could be amended before it was voted on. In this case, it can be.
Fair Economist
Sounds like a temporary block or a speed bump, not “going down”. Schumer was demanding McConnell include the TTP with a couple of other bills so I’m guessing McConnell didn’t give him his deal. So this is probably just a negotiating tactic to get some concessions on other issues. The fact that uber-TTP-proponent Wyden voted against is pretty much proof – *he* certainly didn’t have a change of heart.
edit: I see Kay already posted some details on this
BGinCHI
@Keith G: If that fucking idiot is saying that, then we know the Dems who voted against are doing the right thing.
He’s like an even dumber and more scoldy Bill Kristol.
Cacti
Harry Reid rolled Mitch McConnell.
He’ll extract some more concessions from him that will satisfy the pro-TPP Dems, then it will sail through with about 65 votes.
Alex S.
Good, no matter what’s really in the bill, it’s good for democracy.
Heliopause
A couple of fig leaves get added to the language and just enough Dems change their minds? Or the thing ultimately passes as is, just not under “fast track”? Obama gives Elizabeth Warren a ride on AF1 to a beer summit at Camp David?
Kay
@Corner Stone:
I disagree. He actually lost some of the free trade Democrats too. They can portray this as the radical Leftists and the union thugs if they want to, but 45 Senators is not a “fringe”
Cacti
One Dem has already crossed over: Carper (DE).
Cacti
@Kay:
All but one of the free trade Dems held out.
McConnel tried to make a power play and got pantsed by Reid.
Corner Stone
@Kay: The reality of 45 votes against debating fast track is one thing, and I kind of agree with you on that point.
But the reality has absolutely nothing to do with how this will be characterized by pundits and the press and those who are looking to take their shots.
Belafon
Can we get a count of how many people don’t understand what “Fast Track Authority” actually means?
Kay
@Corner Stone:
I agree it will pass eventually. I’m disappointed the White House didn’t back the Democrats on the three provisions they want. I think they’ll get them without the White House, but one would think if the White House wants them to vote for this, they could at least back the Democratic demands on the deal.
Corner Stone
@Heliopause:
Part of me wants to believe what will be added are more than mere fig leaves, but yeah, some version of this quote will happen. It’s just a matter of degree.
Corner Stone
@Belafon: Help us all out. What does it mean, genius?
Corner Stone
We’ve been talking about this thing for some time now. Most people understand this was a vote to get fast track an up or down simple majority vote at some point in the future.
Nobody thinks the trade agreement is dead for good with a stake through its heart. This was just the first procedural part of getting the deal eventually passed.
Kay
@Corner Stone:
I’m glad they stuck together rather than ostracizing the liberals :)
It’s a smart approach. They’re stronger together. They can hardly acccuse Wyden of protectionism. He’s the freaking architect.
We;ll see if they fall apart when they’re scolded by media and The Peterson Institute for standing in the way of Progress :)
scav
@Alex S.: More or less where I am. Sausage making, but at least not lock step voting based on mandates from on high. Build the coalitions, go through all the steps. Still sausages.
Kay
@Heliopause:
Currency manipulation isn’t a fig leaf. Congressional Democrats want it, and Ciongressional Republicans don’t want it.
MomSense
@Belafon:
I doubt it.
Cacti
It was more than a little funny to read McTurtle kvetch about Harry Reid using the same tactics Mitch used for 6 straight years.
Tree With Water
Again, the president’s reaction fly’s in the face of LBJ’s sage advice not to expect anyone in on the landing who wasn’t there for the take-off. Leastwise, that bit of common sense political insight is something he inexplicably overlooked. It wouldn’t surprise me if down the road he cops to this episode as the greatest political blunder of his presidency, and one entirely of his own making. Whether he’ll ever ever be honest enough to admit it was all for the best remains to be seen.
BGinCHI
The only solace I am feeling is that Pete Peterson is old and will not last much longer.
I’m so fucking tired of these selfish old white guys. Is meanness the only quality they possess?
Go paint some landscapes or play with your grandkids and stop fucking up the world.
Betty Cracker
@Belafon: Updated with additional info — thanks!
lamh36
Hmm maybe this is feeding into the Dems stab Obama in back narrative
Sherrod Brown today:
https://twitter.com/psddluva4evah/status/598209495945347074
I knew that Obama was hiding his sexism…disrespect bastard….amirite?
Alex S.
@BGinCHI:
But if the current selfish old white guys die, someone similar will replace them, Peter Thiel, for example.
JPL
Obama is a crappy socialist.
Kay
So if fair traders ask for any of the enforcement provisions that make them “fair traders” that dooms the trade deal.
I guess I’m not clear on what they do with this. The only way to get the trade deal is if the trade deal sucks?
Cacti
@lamh36:
Negro POTUS forgot his place when talkin’ to the white wimmins, amiright?
Big props to Senator Brown for his chivalrous protection of caucasian maidenhood.
Botsplainer
On one hand, I think the notion of free trade can benefit the country as a tool of foreign policy, and it can be good for foreign workers. On the other hand, there need to be comprehensive controls that keep domestic corporations from shipping out domestic manufacture or buying up foreign infrastructure for “contract” work while curtailing domestic operations.
Betty Cracker
@lamh36: I would have thought PBO referred to Warren by her first name because they’re personally friendly, so if Brown actually said that, it gets an eye roll from me.
Kay
@BGinCHI:
Whatever you want to say about Peterson, it probably wasn’t a good idea for the administration to roll out Peterson projections for job gains under the trade deal when Clinton did the exact same thing with NAFTA.
I don’t know why free traders continue do this. Stop telling people this creates jobs. They’re going to have to come up with a different defense.
Betty Cracker
@Kay:
Kinda sounds that way!
Turgidson
@BGinCHI:
Now, now, I’ll be 6 feet deep in the ground before I utter a flattering word about David f’n Brooks, but let’s not get carried away. He is certainly not dumber than Bloody Bill WRONG Kristol, although it does seem that his faux-centrist weasel speak is getting less clever by the day.
Alex S.
@Cacti:
To be fair, Warren is only 93.75% caucasian. /troll
BGinCHI
@Alex S.: Let’s be optimistic and hope they still shuffle off the mortal coil ASAP.
BGinCHI
@Kay: What’s worse is that if it does create jobs, it creates SHITTY, low-paying jobs.
People are going to have to wise up if they are still believing anything rich capitalists tell them about their own welfare.
BGinCHI
@Turgidson: If they fought to the death we could find out.
Victimless crime.
Cacti
@Kay:
Japan and S. Korea, the two largest GDP nations after the US in the agreement, both oppose currency manipulation provisions as part of any deal.
Turgidson
@BGinCHI:
That’s an idea I could get behind.
The best evidence for my position is that Kristol lobbied for McCain to pick Palin, whose ignorance was enough to alarm even David f’n Brooks, which is hard to do.
Kay
@Betty Cracker:
What’s interesting is the deal probably does benefit one industry, and that’s food processing. There are US agricultural trade protections that cost US food processors more than their overseas counterparts.
Where I live, food processing workers are actually paid quite well- the two large companies here are union and both are considered “good” employers. Obama could have gone to one of them instead of Nike.
Kay
@Cacti:
I know but currency manipulation is a good issue for Democrats here. I know that because Rob Portman is forced to pretend he supports controls on it :)
Belafon
@Kay:
Pretending to be Obama, not having fast track means he has to take any changes back to those countries. He’s spent a good part of the presidency on this; it was one of his promises when he became president.
And we all worry about a Republican president appointing SCOTUS people, but imagine a Republican president and Congress negotiating the TPP.
raven
No chargers in Madison. 1, 2, 3. . .
SatanicPanic
@Botsplainer: This might get me some boos here, but, if manufacturing sector is so great, why shouldn’t we allow companies to ship jobs to poor countries? Seems kind of selfish to keep those jobs here when poorer countries could use them (assuming we could force them to follow some minimum standards so they don’t end up in collapsing buildings, etc.). Then again, I don’t know if I think manufacturing is great- I wouldn’t want to work in a factory. It seems like kind of a failure of imagination to think that we have to build up a middle class in exactly the same way that we did in the 1960s. YMMV.
Kay
@Belafon:
Yeah, and that’s the administration argument. The problem with that for Senate Democrats, I think, is the administration is telling them “what we hand you is the absolute best deal you can get” and Senate Democrats don’t believe that. They don’t want to completely turn over what constitutes “best we can get” to the administration. “Most progressive trade deal ever!” was the administration line but the response from Democrats was “most progressive ever” is a low bar.
I agree with Reid. Republicans want this. Democrats should at the very least extract some value in retirn for the vote.
Heliopause
@Kay:
The “fig leaf” metaphor implies that an insubstantial change will be made, but one that a handful of votes can hide behind.
Hoodie
The whole thing sounds like kabuki to me. Senate Dems and Hillary get to adopt a fair trade pose, force some provisions on currency manipulation and other issues that Obama is probably fine with, and Senate Republicans get pawned into giving Obama TPA out of a misguided desire to drive a wedge between Obama and progressives. I seriously doubt Obama thinks his legacy is going to hang on TPP when he has things like ACA, gays in the military, killing bin Laden, etc. I imagine his greatest concern is the not insignificant possibility that a Republican president will be negotiating something like TPP in the future, which will be a guaranteed fustercluck for American workers.
Archon
Normally I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt specifically because Obamacare worked EXACTLY the way he said it would for millions of people (like me) when he was besieged by doubters, a lot of those on the left. I still get angry thinking about his supposed “allies” who wanted Obama to walk away from the most important piece of legislation in generations because it might help insurance companies, as if health care were some zero sum game.
So I trust Obama more than I do the activist left and it would be an open and shut case for me…except for the glaring red flag that is Republican support. I can’t let that go, I adore and trust Obama (as much as I could trust a politician anyways) but if this is so good for the country why do unpatriotic and unprincipled people know as Republicans support it? Especially considering they literally fought Obama on everything else he has supported.
This is a tough one for me to decipher…
Cacti
@Kay:
About 1/4 of the meat, poultry, and seafood processing labor force is estimated to be undocumented immigrants.
Corner Stone
The 10 biggest lies you’ve been told about the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Yes, it’s to DDay at Salon. Still pretty on point.
raven
@Hoodie: I think what you mean is that it is all bullshit. I’ll vote for dat!
Kay
@Archon:
There’s a political aspect to it too. Democrats will handwring and focus on “Democrats in disarray” but Republicans have their own problems with free trade. Democrats have now spend a solid month telling GOP working class voters “Republicans are shipping your job overseas”/
El Caganer
@Belafon: That may well be what we see. This thing has been percolating for a long time, and it may still be in the works by the time Obama leaves office.
Brachiator
Hardly. I was cleaning up a back room and found a copy of The Economist from February, 2014. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate, and Harry Reid was opposing Obama’s request to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Studies had suggested that proposed deals could generate $600 billion a year globally, with $200 billion going to America. Dubya had been granted fast-track authority in 2002, and that deal had expired in 2007.
Maybe TPP was a bad deal; but the Democrats had years to develop better alternatives. Instead, we got nothing. And as Betty Cracker notes, the Republicans offer self-serving lip service. But oddly, the so-called progressives and the Republicans have accomplished their mutual goal, to deprive a Democratic president any domestic agenda. The GOP are master hypocrites, who approve the trade deal, but don’t mind stalling the economy while Obama still sits in the White House. Some 1 per centers may do OK, but the GOP has no problem impoverishing their own and everybody else, as long as they can promise to be saviors who will save the world from Obama.
Democrats don’t have a good excuse. They can talk all they want about good reasons for opposing these trade pacts, but they have little to offer besides stale nostrums from the past, and unless they can win back Congress, are in no position to do anything even if they had a clue about what they wanted or how to achieve it.
Kay
@Cacti:
I’m sorry, I’m not talking about people who deal with the raw material. I’m talking aboutr food processing, where they make the raw material into a product- it’s soup and candy here and they have solid wages and benefits. The jobs are sought-after.
singfoom
Well good, at least the fast track authority went down. I call this a success for Democracy. Now they’ll have to fight it out in the open if they really want to pass the deal.
That said,
Yup. I don’t know that fast track will come back, but this isn’t over and this is a battle victory, not the end of the war. But hell, it’s good to get some good news.
Corner Stone
“Recent trade deals have in fact increased the trade deficit, such as the agreement with South Korea. Senator Sherrod Brown notes that the deal has only increased exports by $1 billion since 2011, while increasing imports by $12 billion, costing America 75,000 jobs.”
Archon
@Kay:
Agreed, there is a political calculation to this that Obama doesn’t have to worry about since he isn’t running again.
Cacti
@Brachiator:
I’ll go one step further. Running away from this President has led to nothing but huge, crushing, electoral defeats for Congressional Dems. If the next Dem candidate thinks that running away from this President will get them anywhere, we’re in for a Republican White House in addition to our Congressional minorities. After showing them how to win in the 21st century not once, but twice, the decrepit Democratic legislative apparatus is still sure they know a better way…two big midterm defeats later.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Good. NOW MAKE IT PUBLIC, so we know precisely how and how hard we are to get fucked by this abortion of a bill.
I’ve been an Obama fan but the way this has been handled is utterly inexcusable.
Corner Stone
@Brachiator:
I’m sorry, but WTF does this even mean?
Keith G
@lamh36:
Is there any credible (non-click bate) source talking about a stab in the back? Any?
I hope not since that would be an indication of at least some cognitive dysfunction.
Keith G
@Corner Stone:
Thou shalt not vote against an Obama position.
Corner Stone
@Keith G: I think it’s more complicated than that. Brachiator has oft expressed bile towards those to the left of his positions. I’m just wondering what it is he thought they should, or could, do?
Fast track is a bad outcome. Is the deal itself bad? I think that’s the most likely outcome seeing as all the trade deals in my lifetime have been net negative for the middle/working class American.
But, IMO, there’s simply no way fast track should have received an up or down vote and I am glad it’s not going to receive one.
Let’s see more about the actual deal.
Corner Stone
Read this paragraph and ponder what it’s actually saying:
Kay
@Archon:
Yeah, I heard the President say that at the Nike facility. That everyone who oppsoed this was politically motivated while he was not.
I disagree with him because I followed it. His administration touted 650,000 jobs created as aresult of this, and that is purely hypothetical- a number they derived from a think tank book. The actual job creation estimate is zero, because exports are balanced by imports.
He may be doing a “China pivot” he may want to set the rules on trade before a Republican does. but job creation! as rationale is imaginary and he was “playing politics” just as much as Warren and Brown were.
I don’t have any problems with political battles but I’m not a huge fan of pointing fingers about “playing poltics” while one is engaged in politics. That’s asking the other side to disarm while you’re going after them.
Archon
@Keith G:
What it means to me is, what is the progressive alternative when it comes to trade, specifically via the Pacific rim?
If it’s about protecting blue collar workers lets be honest, what can we possibly do to really protect blue collar workers when emerging markets can pay those very same workers one dollar an hour? Are we going to tell fast growing countries like Vietnam that they have to pay 10 dollars an hour? Do we not trade with them until they match our labor and environmental standards? Do we put up trade barriers and watch as every country does the same?
I do think a lot of Dems are stuck making outdated arguments for political optics reasons.
Linnaeus
@Brachiator:
I agree that the Democrats have to do a better job of articulating a positive, progressive agenda, but I’m not convinced that supporting the TPP is the way to do that. I don’t think it should be passed just to do something.
Kay
@Corner Stone:
Here’s another layer to ponder. I think Boehner is full of shit. I don’t think he has the GOP in the House. They’re scared of the “sending American jobs overseas! attack.
Boehner has his own problems.
Kay
@Archon:
They don’t object to trade. They want more on labor and environmental protections and they want money for displaced workers.
What they learned from NAFTA is you don’t get that after the fact.
Steppan
@Linnaeus:
Yep.
The TPP is full of some really awful stuff wrt: IP and the ISDS. There’s no reason to propose anything similar, because bad ideas are bad.
Corner Stone
@Kay: The vote in the House, if and when it happens, is far from a sure thing. Boehner needed 10 or 15 D Senators to vote Yay on this to even have a chance at keeping the Tea Dupes in check.
They may just yet blow this whole thing to hell.
Kay
@Corner Stone:
I feel I know him so well, from listening to his weasely self
Last week he was preemptively announcing that Obama didn’t have the votes in the Senate.
I thought “oh, look at that, Boehner doesn’t have the votes” :)
Corner Stone
@Archon:
But they aren’t paying “those very same workers”, now are they?
Linnaeus
@Steppan:
I’ll be honest – there’s a lot more I have to learn on this, so I’m not going to dismiss the TPP out of hand. I do think that given the recent history of other deals like this one, the TPP deserves scrutiny and care.
jl
@Brachiator:
You are ranting. Calm down.
” Studies had suggested that proposed deals could generate $600 billion a year globally, with $200 billion going to America. ”
One study by Peterson Institute, that is not a very reliable source.
” Maybe TPP was a bad deal; but the Democrats had years to develop better alternatives ”
The TPP solves no pressing issues that involve the economics of the average working person in the US in the short run relevant for elections. And how will ‘the Democrats’ develop practical better alternatives when they have to rely on Obama, with whom progressive Democrats disagree negotiate? Or are you OK with Congress conducting trade deal negotations?
” deprive a Democratic president any domestic agenda. ”
How is the TPP a domestic agenda?
” stale nostrums from the past, ”
Could you be a tad more specific? As Dean Baker might say, arithmetic can be considered a stale nostrum from the past too, and that durrned old fashioned so twentieth century arithmetic says many of the claims made by TPP proponents don’t add up.
Archon
@Kay:
Including labor and environmental protections that would be up to the acceptable standard of American progressives ain’t happening. We probably couldn’t even get South Korea and Japan to agree to that (probably Australia).
I think Obama would be all for setting aside billions of dollars for any displaced workers, do you think the Republican Congress cares about that?
Steppan
@jl:
Well said.
Corner Stone
@Archon:
Ok, then what’s the upside if we can’t get those, or some version of same, in the deal?
Hal
I just don’t know enough about this deal to form a solid opinion about how good or bad it is. Is the deal itself terrible, or is it that there isn’t enough knowledge of the deal to really say either way?
Bobby Thomson
@Corner Stone: it means that we need to do “something,” even if it’s stupid and counterproductive. TPP would get Republican support and therefore a majority of votes. Brachiator then criticizes the minority party for not enacting an alternative, overlooking that they have a minority and were thwarted when they had a majority. It’s the kind of bad faith argument I generally associate with Firebaggers and Republicans posing as disappointed purity trolls – but I repeat myself.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Kay: Yeah, this isn’t passing the House but I’m not sure it needs to. They’re not voting on the treaty – they’re voting on shoving it through without review or making it public. I don’t know if you need the House for that or not.
And it doesn’t matter, because those terms, in a democracy, are not acceptable.
jl
It is true this is just a procedural vote, and it does not prevent passage of the TPP.
But remember the fast track provision covered future agreements in addition to the TPP, so I think it is important.
And we will get a better process for TPP approval (if it is approved), and might get a better treaty, if proposals for improvements do not sink the talks.
So, I think to vote is significant and a good thing.
I think all the noble talk about TPP provisions maybe helping workers in lower income countries, and etc. But that is very speculative. The same sort of talk preceded approval of NAFTA, and whether that helped the average worker, particularly average small scale farmer in Mexico is very hard to determine.
The main, almost only, short term thing we know for sure that the TPP will do, is increase the power and reach of patent monopolies for companies in the drug, communications, and IT industry. So, workers in all the countries rich and poor, would face higher prices for those goods. And that is good policy and good politics, exactly how?
I will remind people that tariff and other traditionally defined trade barriers are already very low, thanks to genuine free trade pacts passed after WWII through the 1970s. Not much to gain from further lowering from those. The vast majority of short and medium run effects of the TPP will work through increased monopoly protection for patented and copyrighted intellectual property of various sorts.
Kay
@Archon:
No, they know they aren’t getting US labor and environmental standards. What they want are enforceable standards.
Also, the way to get worker training funding is not to vote for a deal that Republicans want until you get worker training. McConnell actually already gave them that, so they won that round. The sticking point is currency manipulation. Reid obviously thinks he can get it.
The administration announcing “this is the most progressive deal possible!” just isn’t enough.
I think the Nike facility trip and the bad-mouthing Warren and labor leaders was a political miscaculation, myself. The White House made a decision to redefine their position as THE progressive position rather than defending the deal on free trade terms, and while that is bold and counter-intuitive, it is also risky. I think it backfired.
Bobby Thomson
@Linnaeus: supporting a conservative agenda is generally not the best way of offering a liberal alternative.
Kay
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
All diue respect, but if one more person tells me they’re not voting on the treaty I may start weeping. I know they’re not voting on the treaty :)
Linnaeus
@jl:
Yes, although my view is that passage of fast-track would strongly foreshadow passage of the TPP.
jl
@Kay: The way the administration tried to sell this agreement was pretty tired. Not sure why no one considered that the ‘trust me’ approach was worn thin by Clinton on foreign trade, and broken to pieces by Bush II on 90 percent of his policies.
Corner Stone
@jl:
It’s not hard to determine at all. They were virtually wiped out due to NAFTA.
Too bad El Cid rarely stops by here any more.
Corner Stone
@jl:
Stale nostrums?
Kay
@Bobby Thomson:
It was just really tough to take “this is now the progressive position on trade!” Oh, okay. Mitch McConell always supports those.
I don’t know why they had to attempt that redefinition. They could have just said “we’re free trade Democrats” instead of saying “this is now the most liberal position”. No it’s not and they can’t make it one by proclamation of the President.
RaflW
My take is that the TPP might not be that bad a thing, depending on what’s really in it. But fast track is highly problematic. Just because the Prez is a Democrat this time doesn’t mean “trust me, I’m the Prez” is a good idea.
jl
@Corner Stone: I don’t know whether ‘trust me’ is a stale nostrum or not. But not sure how else to interpret the WH boilerplate that has been issued in response to specific criticisms of the TPP, and Obama asking us to judge the TPP on the basis of his own vague assertions about his consistency and judgment on all good things he has tried to do.
kc
Why do the media always frame everything like this. So fucking annoying. It can’t just be that they disagree, it has to be a “stinging rebuke.” Fuck this editorializing.
kc
@Kay:
.
If they even get that, who really thinks it would do any goddamned good?
Brachiator
@Corner Stone:
It’s really simple. I read a lot here from you and others about how this deal is bad and should be opposed. As I noted, Democrats, led by Harry Reid opposed the deal in 2014 and earlier, when the Democrats had a majority.
What do you have to offer as an alternative?
I don’t express bile towards the left. I have no patience for idiot progressives who either have no ideas or only have bad ideas. And for the record, I am NOT here calling you an idiot, so don’t take this as a personal attack.
Further, it is a plain goddam fact that the Republicans have done and will do anything they can to prevent a Democratic president from governing. They did it to Clinton. They are doing it to Obama.
Crowing over the failure of TPP plays into the GOP’s hands, without any fallback position.
@Linnaeus :
good points. TPP may not be great. But again, what have the Democrats done to come up with something better? If not this deal, Obama and the Democrats need to come up with something that they can use to call the GOP’s bluff.
It’s a fair point to say that just passing a bill to do something is not a good idea. But doing nothing, and not being in a position as a minority party to get anything is not much of a solution, either.
Kay
@Corner Stone:
It’s my personal obsession, but I was hearing echoes of ed reform.
Yelling “status quo!” at people to shut down debate.
They did the same thing with that: “while this may LOOK identical to Jeb Bush’s position, it is actually the most liberal”
Kay
@kc:
I think it could do some good if someone were actually committed to it. After NAFTA is was just like “see ya, rust belt! Good luck transitioning!”
Free traders refuse to admit downside risk, and that drives me crazy.
Fair Economist
@Brachiator:
There’s nothing to be fixed with the TPP. We already have free-trade deals with most of the countries and the only large one we’d “gain” free-trade with is – Japan. Whose tariff is only about 1% anyway.
There’s just no need for any kind of “free-trade” agreement with these countries.
jl
@Brachiator:
” TPP may not be great. But again, what have the Democrats done to come up with something better? ”
This is what puzzles me the most about your apparent anger over this issue.
Why is ‘no treaty for now’ not something better?
This is not like health care reform, with millions of uninsured people suffering and causing problems for others. It is not like Iraq, a botched foreign occupation with no apparent safe and easy exit.
It is trade deal, that does not address any real problems created for the average US worker by foreign trade. The only certain short and medium term effects are increased monopoly profits by big corporate patent and copyright holders.
Why is ‘nothing’ not a good solution to a non problem?
Edit: and I honestly do not understand what the GOP’s bluff is. If not passed, no one will give rat’s ass about the TPP, or whatever the GOP thought it was bluffing, as far as I can see.
Corner Stone
@Brachiator:
Why? Why do they need to “come up with something”? This deal started under an R admin years ago. We already have tariff deals in place with most of the countries involved in this deal.
I’m against this deal because I can look backward, unlike our president, and see we’ve been getting fucked over and over because our leaders were told they had to “come up with something”.
Please, tell us all here, how is giving fast track authority on this issue anything other than a bad deal? Is it a good thing? Do you support fast track for this trade deal? Or are you just expressing more bile at those to your left?
Maybe this should you tell you something? Why do I want to be chided to get onboard a deal to “come up with something” to grant a D president some victory if everything I can possibly know about the deal tells me to walk away?
Brachiator
@Bobby Thomson:
Who thwarted them when they had a majority? They shot themselves in the foot.
And I didn’t say that the minority did not enact an alternative. What I said was, that as the majority party or as the minority party, the Democrats have not come up with much of any trade policy. All they do is play opposition games. It’s really simple. TPP is a bad deal? Fine. What else you got?
It’s funny. The Economist article mentioned that some lawmakers opposed TPP and giving the president fast track authority “as an opportunity to put daylight between themselves and their Republican foes ahead of November’s elections.” How did that work out?
Corner Stone
@Kay:
They fail to talk honestly about import ratios, also.
kc
@Kay:
Yep. No one will be committed to it. Some funds will trickle down and be absorbed by middlemen without ever benefiting the people who lose jobs.
Elie
@lamh36:
Yeah, I brought up the general issue of this perception yesterday on the post about TPP and got my head handed to me with indignation about how I could say such a thing. Well I tell ya, that perception is “out there” shall I say… I didn’t make it up
Corner Stone
@Brachiator:
Nothing. Why do we need something to address a non-problem?
What’s the issue we need to solve that started in 2005 and the US jumped onboard with under GWB in 2008?
ruemara
I didn’t think it would pass at all. Too much opposition, too much bad press. And how ironic is it that the only Congress that has ever put a kibosh on Obama’s plans is once again, the Dems. I get his reasoning on trying to get the level of authority to do this agreement, but I don’t want the precedent set. Not that this would stop a Republican president with a Republican Congress from doing it with less protection.
Elie
@Belafon:
Unfortunately, our President is not trustworthy enough to negotiate an acceptable deal. After all, there is no difference between Obama and the Repubs amirite?
Corner Stone
@ruemara:
What does this mean?
Corner Stone
@Elie:
There were 52 votes for fast track today by R Senators. So, objectively, answer your own question on this matter.
Keith G
@Elie: If what you assert exists in any significant way, it has important implications for the Democratic Party. That is why I asked Iamh to guide me to where I could learn more about this.
She has not responded, so I will ask you. Where “out there” is this perception rooted? Who are the opinion transmitters or community elites who are giving it voice?
Tree With Water
@ruemara: Even if this temporarily puts the kibosh on trade deals of vast consequence, so what? It’s then simply a matter of back to the drawing board with lowered expectations. Anytime someone tells me it’s their way or doom, I’ll generally take my chances.
jl
@Elie: I think on the TPP, progressives on foreign trade are asking for a difference between Obama and Bill Clinton (NAFTA).
I just got an impassioned plea from Obama to send in my signature or money or something to OFA so he could continue his important work on foreign trade. I see no reason to believe Obama is not sincere.
Maybe I should write the WH and say that now that the fast track got (edit: effectively, by US Senate standards) voted down, it will be great to be able to read the agreement in a timely way, and have an informed debate, and if what Obama says is true, then I will sign, and send whatever $ I can afford.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
Hmmm
Do you think that we have any competitive reality with China that needs to be addressed in trying to maintain strong international trade? Do you think that China, now excluded from TPP, would negotiate trade agreements with these same parties that would make it easier or less easy for the US? Is any trade important to you or do you think trade is unnecessary except for within the US (I know you don’t think this, but tell me if you can, what you DO believe is important about trade)
The Pacific and Asia is an area of great importance to the US and its long term security (read not military security but economic security) Unless you hate all business, that is how people in this country make money. In some countries, of course, the governments run businesses and make money, but that is not our model. If we want some sort of business entity to grow their markets and make money, we need trade. YES (cause I know its coming), we need to assure that we have fair trade and that workers can be protected, but cutting off trade agreements or saying they are not important, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Kay
@kc:
I don’t know: I watched a labor dept program work here. They ran it thru the community college.
I am a big fan of Obama’s labor dept. I was sad that Perez jumped onboard the free trade train at the end there, because I think he has political potential. He manages to talk to people about training without sounding like a condescending asshole, which, given how few people can do it, must be a rare talent.
He has a nice earnestness about him.
jl
@ruemara:
” And how ironic is it that the only Congress that has ever put a kibosh on Obama’s plans is once again, the Dems. ”
Well, heck. if only one political party has an interest at all in effective governance of the nation, it has to all the work by itself. So, odd maybe, not sure it is ironic.
Brachiator
@Corner Stone:
Because maybe what you think you know is not sufficient.
You give the president fast track authority, and maybe you get something you don’t like.
You don’t give the president fast track authority and you guarantee that you get nothing.
But you need to be able to look forward as well.
@jl:
Here we disagree that there are no real problems to be addressed.
Aside from this, as I noted, the Republicans are happy to have a powerless president. that’s part of their strategy. And it doesn’t matter to them whether people are hurt. And yet, whenever they win the White House, they demand up or down votes, or mute acceptance of GOP policy. And Democrats have been only too happy to comply.
So, yeah, I get a little miffed at the neutering of the president. The question is, why are you so sanguine about this result?
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: Why is nothing not an acceptable alternative to a specific trade deal?
kc
@kc:
Then again, it could be worse.
Elie
@Keith G:
I can’t point to an article, Keith. I will say that among my black friends, there is a general cynicism about white liberals that goes back to 2008 and how Obama was treated during the primaries. Most recently, the strong perception that white Democrats would not stand up for the major policy accomplishments of this administration and literally ran away from Obama, asking him not to speak on their behalf really happened. He kept his mouth shut and stayed away as most of these people ran their shitty campaigns and lost. I personally felt that he had to stick up for what had been accomplished with NO help from any of them. In fact, a few of the Democrats (not liberals necessarily), including Hillary, jumped him on his foreign policy (yes even Jimmy Carter), because, you know, ISIS was his fault and they told him we should have invaded Syria.
So, do I have published documentation? No. I would love to see someone put together a survey about that (maybe the Democratic party).
Corner Stone
@Brachiator:
This sounds incredibly stupid. I’m not sure how you typed it out and hit Submit.
Granting fast track guarantees an outcome I am against. There’s no way to amend it, or filibuster the deal and we don’t see the full text until after it’s too late.
I’m fine with getting nothing. Why, and what, do I want from a deal with countries we already have low tariffs with? It doesn’t address currency controls and China is already the 800lb primate that this deal doesn’t address.
You still haven’t addressed what it is about this deal that you are in favor of?
Elie
@jl:
sounds fair enough.
kc
@Elie:
They’re certainly on the same page when it comes to this issue.
Kay
@Tree With Water:
I;m sick of that too. It’s a way of controlling debate.
I think Democrats need to have some fundamental discussion about risk. They cannot sell risk to risk-averse economically insecure people without coming off as priviliged because a capacity to bear risk is part of being economically privilged. Asking people to “trust me- jump off this cliff- there’s opportunity there!” is just not going to work in the current climate. The Opportunity Agenda is a bad theme. People get to where they can contemplate opportunity after they feel they have some ground beneath them, not before.
When people who are economically insecure hear “disruption!” it sounds like “loss” because they don’t think they WIN risky bets. They assume they lose what little they have. Democrats have to grapple with that. It’s real and it’s a class divide.
jl
@Elie: My personal view is that the TPP will have very little effect on China’s trade position. China was not party to the current negotiations and it seems all hypotheticals and speculation about how China would react, or whether China could be brought into the framework later.
What matters to the average US worker is US net exports, and China’s decisions on how to set the international value of its currency has a lot more to do with that than anything in the TPP. And the TPP proponents have explicitly rejected bringing currency manipulation into the negotiations, on the grounds that such matters are too diffuse and vague and difficult to judge to dealt with in a trade treaty. Though in fact, I think currency manipulation is relatively easy to deal with compared to labor and environmental standards, and sundry government subsidies that are deemed by some corporation to be unfair.
And if we are going to get hypothetical about China, I think its foreign aid programs are more important than any possible trade deals in determining its strategic position in many developing economies (though not the TPP countries, but if TPP proponents get hypothetical, I will too).
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Corner Stone: They fail to talk honestly about anything. If the American people had been told what everyone involved knew was going to happen with NAFTA (and for that matter, the Mexican people, who if anything got fucked even harder) it wouldn’t have gotten one vote.
Fair Economist
@Elie:
Obama’s “defenses” of the TPP involves things like the 650,000 job gain claim – which is from the conservative Peterson Institute (usually more involved in granny starving) and which even *THEY* have repudiated as unsupportable. If that’s his level of understanding then, actually, he is most definitely *not* qualified to negotiate or oversee any deal. It doesn’t matter that he’s done a number of excellent things in the past (which he has) – he is manifestly unqualified for *this one*.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
No, that is what YOU are saying, CS. YOU are saying there is no difference (granted you are saying maybe for only this issue, but I don’t know that for sure)
Corner Stone
@Elie:
We already have deals with most of these partner countries. This isn’t anything new except for Japan, and from what I have read we are not breaking into their stranglehold on the automotive market.
Currency controls are not currently addressed, and if fast track had been allowed an up or down vote it would not be addressed because the R’s do not want that provision added.
China is already a major player in the area, obviously, and there’s simply nothing about this deal that stops that, mitigates that, or gives us advantage in that.
Elie
@Fair Economist:
Well then, let us hope that after the next election, we don’t have a *Real* TM Republican doing our trade deals. Or maybe not, you say?
Kay
Here’s what they want:
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Kay: Kay, as always, great post. People are scared to go to the grocery store, the gas station, because they might not be able to afford what they need. You can’t ask people in that position to join you on a weekend trip to Vegas, because “hey, I always win there.”
jl
@Brachiator:
” So, yeah, I get a little miffed at the neutering of the president. The question is, why are you so sanguine about this result? ”
I do not think the vast majority or ordinary workers or voters in the US will notice at all if the TPP is not passed, and more important issues will occupy the public mind in terms of both good policy and good politics. I don’t think most people care about the TPP (other than a generalized fear that any trade deal might take their jobs), or breathless news stories about whoever is handed a stinging political rebuke on issues most people don’t understand or care about much.
Goes for the GOP too. I will love it if the GOP’s budget gets trashed and stuffed and contravened by stinging political defeats, but I don’t think the average person gives a rat’s ass, there just are not that many political horse race junkies, which is probably a good thing.
Could you please specify what real foreign trade problems exist, and that need addressing, that the TPP addresses, and will not be addressed if the TPP is not passed as envisioned by Obama’s current approach?
Corner Stone
@jl:
I’ve asked this of him at least three times now in just this thread. Good luck.
Fair Economist
@Elie:
We already have free trade, and lots of trade, with almost all these countries. This is not a trade deal. This is a deal to reduce national sovereignty on copyrights, patents, health standards, labor standard, and environmental standards, inter alia, and replace democratic control on those subjects with control by juries picked by multinational corporations. Calling it a “trade” deal is an attempt to distract people from what the deal really is.
Corner Stone
@Elie: This is a creepy as fuck attempt at evasion. Who wants this trade deal? Who put their names down to approve fast track for this trade deal? Who are they using as sources to try and push this trade deal?
Don’t fucking tell me I’m working the back of the room.
kc
@Brachiator:
That must be why they support fast track.
That must be why they support fast track and the TPP.
Huh. Yet in this instance where the Dems (save for Obama) AREN’T complying with what the GOP wants, you’re complaining.
If the best argument you can muster is making this a referendum on Obama’s perceived virility . . .
Corner Stone
@Elie:
The US joined these trade talks under an R WH admin. How is getting it passed under a D admin a good thing?
WJC to this day gets NAFTA hung around his neck, as he fucking should. I, personally, don’t want to repeat the same kind of outcomes under another two term D president with this deal.
I screamed loud and long about NAFTA, and see no reason to not do the same for this deal. Someone tell me what you support about it? Beyond it’s Obama pushing it?
Fair Economist
@Elie:
Actually, fast track would give the *next* president wide latitude to negotiate future trade deals as well. *You’re* the one saying that Ted Cruz, if elected, should be able to write up a trade deal with Congress being reduced to a rubber-stamp. It’s if fast track fails that future Republican Presidents (if any) will be restricted on future trade deals.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
Sorry- I disagree. If the US is unable to join TPP, it will be a setback for us and while yes, we have other agreements, I have no idea (do you really), whether they are substantive in all the areas that we need to remain truly competitive. Things don’t stop and wait — the world will move on and unless you know different, as President would you want to risk that? Our future “wars” will not be fought with arms, but through technological and economic superiority. This aint 1950. This isn’t even hardly 2014 anymore… things are moving very fast and as President, you hopefully are not just thinking about your immediate tenure but trying to set up security down the line.
Of course, no one is perfect — or even close and Obama, like anyone else, is human and has made mistakes and this may be one. But I am STILL giving him the benefit of the doubt. I certainly accept that others here may disagree with me — even strongly disagree with me — I accept the results of this legislation and hope that it doesn’t end up screwing things up. I am hopeful that instead, something can be worked out.
Elie
@Fair Economist:
I accept your assessment of Fast Track…
Kay
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
I’m a lawyer and I’m (somewhat) economically secure and all I think when I hear it is “easy for you to say. What if they lose what little they have?”
Democrats need to tap into that, understand where that comes from. It isn’t nostalgia or harkening back to the 1950’s. It’s just plain fear things could get worse for them. They’re not wrong, either. Things COULD get worse for them.
Calouste
@Archon:
The government of Australia are currently a bunch of brain-dead, climate-change-denying dimwits, who have passed legislation like the Carbon Tax Repeal Bill and the Mining Tax Repeal Bill. It would be easier to get South Korea and Japan to agree to any environmental regulations, or at least until Abbott gets his ass handed to him in the 2016 elections.
Keith G
@Corner Stone: Are you treading water yet? Your area looks like it’s getting wetter than we are.
Elie
I have to say I have learned and am learning a lot from this conversation, that while impassioned, is also substantive.
I think I am happy that this is how democracy is supposed to work.
My main quibble is the sharp reality of how fast things are moving in the world. Though not related, an example is how fast Great Britain went from a world power to an insecure collection of countries on an Island. How Russia has accepted being feared over trying to fix its economy. How “surprises” such as 911 have transformed us from optimism to fear and lack of faith in our government and ourselves.
I know we have to do our best to stay synched up in a crazy world. How to do that while maintaining our humanity and values as a democracy is a huge challenge, getting bigger each day.
Corner Stone
@Kay:
I’ve been saying that this deal is wage exportation, period. But you’re right. It’s not just exportation of wages but also an onshoring of risk. Again.
That’s why they’ve been going out of their way to deride anyone asking for answers or pointing out potential flaws.
I don’t know what’s wrong with people here. Look at who wanted fast track to pass, beyond just President Obama.
Corner Stone
@Keith G: We got blasted last night around 1:30am and it continued for a while. Haven’t seen anything new yet. Galveston County is some bit away from here, and my understanding is they are possibly the ones to get deluged.
However, I enjoy a good thunderstorm so let’s see what happens.
Kay
It’s from the labor reporter at the NYTimes. He’s actualy retiring.
Labor reporting is itself transitioning, in a good way I think. There are younger reporters (Politico, waPo) and they are broader. They don’t just cover “labor” as in “unions”. They’re becoming the people who cover issues that matter to all working people. It’s fun to watch it happen.
I think there was a space there and they’re filling it.
The first thing the new labor reporter at Politico (Mike Elk) did when Politico hired him was try to organize Politico, which I thought was delightful :)
Keith G
@Kay:
I do not think that is has sunk in to a lot of folks just how brutal the change has been over the last decade or so. Our pop culture and other media celebrate and expand the relatively few stories of success while so much else goes unmarked.
I am amazed and sickened by the changes I see happening around me that garner so little attention from elites. My area of acute interest is working with community groups to slow the loss of affordable housing. Saying, “No one cares” is not much of an overstatement.
Corner Stone
@Elie:
Anytime someone says this my ass puckers. The word “competitive” is doing a fuckton of work there, friend. Just like the word “progressive”, it means whatever someone wants it to mean.
Remain truly competitive? What does that mean to you in context of this deal?
Because I’m not worried about remaining competitive. Not through this trade deal and not through education reform and not through a bunch of other false vectores snakeoil salesmen keep trying to lube us up with.
Someone please tell me what this trade deal offers that we are actually for?
Kay
@Keith G:
This is a younger WaPo “labor” reporter I read on Twitter. Really she doesn’t write about “labor”. She writes about working class people. Partly that may be because there are so few union members, but I think it’s partly because there is a hole there, and the younger “labor” reporters are filling it.
It’s weird because the “labor beat” people are acutely aware of the prospect of loss. They follow things like workers comp being gutted and overtime going away. I think that recognition is so important, that some people can’t take these things for granted. They could well lose them.
https://twitter.com/lydiadepillis
Elie
@Corner Stone:
CS — YOUR interests are not necessarily the same as yours. Presumably you get that but maybe not.
I want my country, my fellow citizens to be strong and yes, I donot at all mind the word *competitive*. Competitive is reality. At least in my world. As a black woman, I know that in ways you can only imagine and I tell you, I better know what it means. Maybe you can afford not to. I can’t and I see what not knowing what that means to many of my black brethren and sisters. I will want the best for all of us and I want us to take our place as leaders and the best we can be, as humans but also at making things better.
Corner Stone
@Elie: Nice job, Elie. It doesn’t matter what I have to say about this comment. Perfectly done.
Corner Stone
“Being competitive”, “Remaining competitive”, “Staying competitive”.
These are all garbage time phrases that business CEOs, job retraining shills and education reformers all rely on.
They mean nothing, they are exactly like falling down the rabbit hole where a word means exactly what I want it to and nothing else. But yet they spur fear in working class people. Fear for their jobs, their futures and the futures of their children. Just as they are meant to do.
Competition or being competitive means risk, it means insecurity. How does a worker remain competitive? Skills training! Adding value! Working harder for less, surrendering work/life balance for the greater productivity of the company’s bottom line!
How does a student remain competitive? More education, even if that means charter schools or for profit sham colleges.
It’s all a scam. It’s a way to keep all of us looking over our shoulder for “the competition”. The H1-Bs from India, the students from South Korea, in the ’80s it was the Japanese. Off and on it’s the Chinese.
It’s economic fear mongering.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
I have to laugh at myself…apologize for the error. I couldn’t go back and correct it after the fact.
Listen, I respect your opinions/beliefs. I see what you are trying to say — that the way I mean competitive and how you mean it may not be in synch. While I allow that your ideas have merit, please do me the same respect. I believe that there is a need for strategic competitiveness in this world.
Gota go. Maybe I will pick this up later. I am sure its not the last conversation on this we will have on BJ
Tree With Water
Were you an extremist? I was, and so was the president.
From The Guardian.com:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/12/revealed-fbi-spied-keystone-xl-opponents#img-1
Aleta
In two systems, post office and university, I’ve been watching how decision making has been passed from local to distant, from those with experience doing the affected work to those trained to manage via numerical analysis and projections but with no local experience. The ‘numbers in a spreadsheet’ approach seems increasingly unbalanced by worker experience or local override. (Keeping workers busy by making them fill out numbers on forms in addition to their actual work isn’t the same as worker input.) Stable systems are being destroyed very quickly by people using numbers to rationalize what they want to do, or know how to do, or to make themselves look good over the short term as they move up the administrative ladder. Numerical models are great as laboratories for performing experiments, but in my opinion the business world is not using them with scientific rigor or debate. It pisses me off when terms like productivity or competition or effectiveness are defined only in numerical ways.
askew
I am thrilled this was stopped for now, but less than pleased with Brown’s personal attacks on Obama calling him sexist. I’ve never been a big Brown fan thanks to his wife’s less than stellar behavior during the 2008 primaries. She gave off serious whiffs of Geraldine Ferraro. So, I am not terribly shocked that Brown is throwing mud and making this personal with the president. It’s fucking stupid though, because there are lots of Dems who oppose TPA/TPP and still love this president. Attacking the president personally is just going to alienate them.
lamh36
askew
@lamh36:
Senator Brown started this ball rolling and his PUMA wife is gleeful about it on twitter. Pretty disgusting.
Not surprised that the National Organization of White Women is speaking up now. They’ve been silent for years while Michelle, Sasha and Malia Obama and Valerie Jarrett were attacked. There is way too much Geraldine Ferraro in much of the feminist movement unfortunately. The only women many of these groups give a shit about is white women.
Tree With Water
@askew: “Serious whiffs of Geraldine Ferraro”? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Whatever it is, it’s funny..
askew
@Tree With Water:
A little casual racism and arrogance mixed with her feminism. I’ll never forget hearing Ferraro’s screed against Obama and how much easier he had it than Hillary as a black man. To this white woman, it was appalling. Every time Brown’s wife talked about Obama, I got that same whiff. With NOW, it’s a lot more obvious in that they just don’t think non-white women exist.
Elie
@askew:
So many threads on any policy anymore, no?
sigh
All those threads, though each small, have an impact.
I trust and believe that many here against TPP fast track, or TPP overall, have everyone’s best interest in mind. I am patient (more or less) and am happy with the arguments being public and even a little mud. That is democracy — messy and loud.
As progressives we have a lot of pressure to support policy and legislation that favors and supports workers. We want that in our hearts and souls. That said, maybe we have some discomfort with acknowledging aspects of how the economy in this country is set up.. notably because that set up has proven over and over to screw average citizens and no shit, devastate the poor. I am glad we are aggressive and suspicious. That is good. But we cannot and should not make arguments that are frivolous and deny that our economy, for a country this size, with its strategic importance ( which we have not because we chose it, but because it is just where we are now), is important to us and therefore so is trade. We must make money to secure ourselves with material needs but also protect our future ability to do so. That is a fact. We can choose not to compete, and think of it on the “down low” as just about personal choices, but we live in a competitive world and we will live the results of that. Dunno about you, but if I am living results, I want them to be as close to my values as possible. To do that, I have to be or we have to be in the game.
You are sadly and badly mistaken if you think you can sit out the competition on the sidelines. Sure, Sweden and the Netherlands – maybe. But not the US. We are where we are and we have to play it in that context. We aint Sweden or the Netherlands and we aint Sierra Leone or Bangladesh.
I would like to hear some more balance from the opponents to TPP who seem to argue against any reality of the need for trade agreements at all. Some just rail against “corporate interests” as though just saying that term lets us know all we need to know.. C’mon — lets talk about how we can do what we need to do as a dominant if not the dominant super power while doing right by our people now and keeping an eye to their future needs. Please.
Tree With Water
@askew: Wow. All this is news to me. My initial reaction? “Meow”.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie:
Link please?
fuckwit
I need TPP for my bunghole.
Omnes Omnibus
@fuckwit: Settle down, Beavis.
Corner Stone
@fuckwit: Are you threatening me?
fuckwit
@Corner Stone: You do not want to face the wrath of my BUNG hole!
Eric
@Keith G: Any time Bobo is mentioned, this article needs to be linked to: