Progressive organizations keep winning big, you guys.
With the high-stakes vote on Fast Track set for today, the liberal group Democracy For America is threatening to primary any Democrats who vote for it. From DFA’s statement:
We will not lift a finger or raise a penny to protect you when you’re attacked in 2016, we will encourage our progressive allies to join us in leaving you to rot, and we will actively search for opportunities to primary you with a real Democrat.
If Fast Track passes, and we do get a final Trans Pacific-Partnership trade deal, these divisions will only continue.
Awesome. I move across town and get my new apartment set up, I get internet back and this is the crap that greets me: DFA now actively threatening to primary anyone who backs President Obama on fast track authority.
What could possibly go wrong there?
Fight it out in the comments.
Betty Cracker
Well, maybe their threats will have the intended effect, the Democrats who might have backed fast track will withdraw their support and the trade deal will go down in flames. It’s the type of hard ball the GOP’s fringe has played for years, and while I don’t like the results, it’s undeniable that it has advanced their agenda.
Keith
Your link goes to a litany of all the things pearl-clutcher Graham would do in his 1st 100 days in office before fainting to the couch.
I think you wanted this link.
On which, I have to ask, what alternative treatment of TPP voting by Democrats would you urge? A strongly worded letter, bigger font on the placards objecting to the vote that (by then) they had taken?
MDC
Is loyalty to Obama to the bitter end more important than progressive principle?
He himself said we would have to “make him” hew to progressive ideas. This is how that’s done.
Face
I’m sure pols are sweating these threats from a nobody group with no real money that no one has heard of and has no real clout.
Zandar
Fixed the link.
@MDC: Well this certainly isn’t going to help keep the Obama coalition together to elect Dems in 2016.
CONGRATULATIONS!
What’s DFA?
I mean, I actually really like the idea – this is how the GOP keeps winning even when they’re losing – but I’ve never heard of these guys before. I wouldn’t get too excited about it.
debbie
There’s conversing and debating, and then there’s strong-arming and bullying. This is wrong.
Chickamin Slam
Zander the biggest Obama cheerleader ever. Rah! Rah! He can do no wrong in your eyes. Even if he shot a baby animal on Live TV Zander’d go “Well it probably was a Lindsay Graham supporter anyways. Go Obama!”
MDC
Primarying politicians is “strong-arming and bullying”? Really? I thought it was Politics 101. We don’t work for them, they work for us. If we dare not primary those who do things we dislike, we’re just giving up on having any major influence whatsoever.
MDC
@Zandar: I would say that passing shitty, undemocratic trade deals won’t help to keep the Obama coalition together to elect Dems in 2016.
Betty Cracker
@Zandar: How is it going to be a drag on that effort?
samiam
Taking a break from the “Bernie Sanders is surging” postings at Dkos Zander? Maybe you should go back and stay there.
Seriously though, Dkos is a joke. They single handedly made me stop calling myself a progressive. They make that word embarassing in a way that no right wingnut site could ever do.
Knowbody
After your last TPP thread you have no credibility left on this subject or any other.
Nobody here gives a fuck about what you think. Go back to your shitty blog with 200 page views a day and play in your little sandbox with the rest of the kids.
Cervantes
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Howard Dean’s outfit.
@Face:
Perhaps.
pamelabrown53
@Knowbody:
Why behave like an unmitigated asshole and make your criticism so personal? Your comment was just plain ugly.
Cervantes
@Zandar:
Can you explain this prediction? (Thanks.)
Jasmine Bleach
Sounds good to me–because, Democrats who vote for this wealth-transferring POS deal are not really Democrats–well, they are neo-lib Democrats, but not standing up for true Democratic causes.
I guess you’re all in with the TPP supporters, so have fun helping to weaken the country!
gene108
@MDC:
What progressive / liberal principles are in play?
There just has not been enough clear information about the TPP for me to have a strong opinion yet, but this just seems a strange hill for everyone to die upon either defending it or opposing it.
Trade barriers are already low and are not going up.
Wage stagnation in the USA has a lot of issues that are very much independent of trade deals.
I just do not get what progressive / liberal American sensibilities are hurt by the TPP or helped by the TPP.
Citizen_X
@pamelabrown53:
Because he is?
chopper
methinks these guys are a little unclear on the concept.
Carolinus
@Chickamin Slam:
This line argument of argument sounds vaguely familiar… Oh yeah, the infamous GGreenwald “nun live on NBC” exchange:
http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com/2013/06/using-rape-jokes-to-make-point.html
Knowbody
@Cervantes: he didn’t explain it last time. I will.
He thinks that since there’s no way Obama can be wrong, disagreeing with the president on a policy issue is a personal attack on the president, and black voters like Zandar are going to be demoralized by these “attacks” from white progressives.
It’s stupidity bordering on the moronic, but then again this is Zandar we are discussing here.
@pamelabrown53: The truth about Zandar is not pretty.
cahuenga
@gene108:
I can understand your question if you were born after Reagan, but…. Believe it or not, there was a time when being a Democrat meant you supported labor and unions. Of course the very idea is somewhat quaint now.
chopper
@Citizen_X:
stalkers gonna stalk.
Mike in NC
On the subject of Huckleberry Graham, the closeted SC senator and GOP hopeful is introducing a new bill to restrict abortion, because Lindsey is obviously the last person in the world who’d actually care about such an issue.
EZSmirkzz
One of the most troubling aspects of the TPP is the lack of transparency. I don’t think that the American people should have to rely on WikiLeaks for information of this sort, an objection Senator Warren has been voicing for the last two years.
A recent article in TechDirt points out some of the goodies we won’t hear about from the White House or Congress.
That being said, I’m somewhat concerned about TPP being a reaction to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which poses a serious threat to the US banking hegemony in world finance, something else the government of the people, by the people and for the people doesn’t appear to be inclined to discuss with us rubes on the keyboards.
The lack of information available then, to a well informed public necessary to the security of a free state, is appalling. There are a lot of balls in the air on this one, and our governments refusal to be open and honest with us is the most troubling aspect of the deal, especially those of us that hold to the theory of secret treaties being the match that lit the gasoline of World War One.
No other generation of political leadership in American history has ever shown such proclivity in getting everything wrong as the crop we have produced in the last twenty-five years, no generation so self-assured in their own infallibility as the the current crop.
I find it much easier then to oppose what I am not allowed to understand, than it is to support something that my leaders say I do not need to understand. No one in the blogosphere, that I am aware of anyway, has spent more political credibility supporting President Obama in dubious adventures and policies than I have. Either the President has lost his mind or thinks the people have.
Until such time as the treaty can be made public this government and this Congress will not receive my support in what, for all practical appearances, is another boondoggle for the working and middle classes of the United States and a bonanza for the hucksters of Wall Street,
JimV
Well, if anyone still believes in 11-dimensional chess, maybe the TPP gets Democrats some campaign bucks from corporations which they use to get elected, and then finally … profit? (The Progressive Agenda.)
Not saying I believe that, but it might be what some Democrats are thinking.
I don’t want the TPP to go into effect, but it seems not big enough a deal for a single-issue-voter issue (gesundheit) to me.
chopper
seems the action being threatened by these guys is more than a few pay grades above their abilities. but god bless em for trying.
Villago Delenda Est
And they should, Zandar. Obama is wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG on this issue. TPP supposedly has all these protections for workers and consumer protection and environmental laws in it, but we can’t verify any of that because vile corporate parasites don’t want us to see it because it’s most likely rife with all sorts of nice little provisions to enhance their parasitism.
Obama IS RONG about this. Fuck him.
Chris
Wait, so for a month or two now we’ve been told that the DFHs need to just shut the fuck up, close their eyes and think of England, because this trade deal is Teh Awesomes, and shut up that’s why…
… and all of a sudden it’s 1) a shock and 2) beyond the pale when some DFHs go and do this?
I mean, I doubt if it’ll amount to much more than a nothingburger, but for fuck’s sake.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@pamelabrown53:
Troll is an actual real-life stalker of Zandar who has been banned multiple times. Do not engage.
pathman
So fighting for what you believe in is a bad thing? Got it, thanks.
Aaron Morrow
I say progressive organizations opposing Obama’s appointment of Larry Summers to the Fed, let alone to the Chair, would have been a worthwhile hill to die upon, so I clearly have a different standard than most.
I personally believe that the leaked portions concerning locking in overextended patent and copyright terms and extending them over nations which have more reasonable lengths is an excellent way to transfer wealth to medical and technological corporations. I accept that it is reasonable to disagree on this point, and believe that progressives who agree AND progressives who disagree with me will (and should!) argue this out in the public sphere.
cahuenga
@EZSmirkzz:
Yup. If a politician requests your support but won’t reveal what the support is for, something is terribly terribly wrong.
Belafon
Eh. I’m pro fast track because I think it would be better to either approve or reject the negotiations made rather than changing them, but if this group wants to primary Democrats, more power to them.
? Martin
@EZSmirkzz: Trade deals are never public because it’s impossible to get a deal struck in public. That’s been true for 2 centuries. Its true for all treaties. There are countless political considerations and pressures on *both* side of these deals. I don’t like it either, but that’s the simple truth of it.
Democrats need to stop reflexively opposing trade deals. Bottom line is that the trade deal is going to get done whether you block it or not – it just might be with Russia or the EU instead, or with the next Republican president to get elected. Democrats should be fighting to shift what gets included in trade deals – because they’re almost all centered around corporate protections. This is an opportunity to set a standard for trade deals that includes worker protections, which Obama has said is in there. Instead of saying ‘no’, you should be demanding those protections be there, because it’s a far better outcome than ‘no’.
FFS, the trade is already happening with us getting nothing from it. You’re not going to stop that. Your principles are meaningless if reality continues along as if they don’t exist.
boatboy_srq
@CONGRATULATIONS!: They’re a progressive interest group, much like ALEC – but without the hyperwealthy backers, the name recognition, or the clout.
Is progressivism doomed to support from middling-financed unknown interest groups, while reactionaries rake in multiple millions to push their toxic agenda? This does not sound like a winning strategy.
Cervantes
@? Martin:
Do you see Democrats opposing the TPP who are not doing that?
Just One More Canuck
who are these ‘better Democrats’ who have a chance to, you know, win
different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker:
Say, you’re new to politics, aren’t you?
? Martin
@Cervantes: Everyone opposing the TPP is doing that, because the alternative isn’t a better trade deal but no trade deal, and therefore no worker protections.
This is the ‘kill the bill’ brigade all over again.
Betty Cracker
@boatboy_srq:
As long as the GOP continues its pro-plutocracy agenda, they’ll have the billionaire vote locked up. Our only advantage is greater numbers, which doesn’t mean squat if we can’t turn out voters. And we can’t turn out voters if they don’t think it matters who runs the country.
cahuenga
Trade deals are never public
Simply not true. NAFTAs details were very public.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
I’m still semi-neutral on the TPP itself. I am willing to simultaneously believe that President Obama honestly thinks it’s the right thing to do, but think that he’s wrong. He ain’t perfect, as demonstrated by the shitshow that is the Department of Education under Arne Duncan.
El Caganer
@? Martin: If the deal is secret, how would we know if there are worker protections in there or not? Sorry, the President telling me that it’s all good isn’t quite enough.
Keith
@EZSmirkzz:
TPP long predates any thought of making the AIIB a reality.
AIIB was proposed by China in 2013, TPP negotiations began in earnest in 2010, following earlier discussions between fewer partners back as far as 2005.
AIIB may provide some ancillary urgency to cement a deal, but TPP is not a reaction to the same – not unless we want to invoke temporal anomalies.
different-church-lady
@samiam:
They’re in favor of fast track, except it’s the fast track to irrelevance.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@cahuenga:
Were NAFTA’s details public during the negotiations, or only while it was up for a vote?
raven
Well Hermann Motherffucking Cain is against this so it can’t be all bad!
different-church-lady
@Knowbody: And the stats on your blog say what?
AxelFoley
@? Martin:
Quoting this to hope it sinks in with some of the emo-like responses here.
Emma
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): This is my take too. Having studied history extensively (until I realized I really couldn’t hack it as a profession) I learned early not to look at any politician/president of any kind as the perfect savior and my moral/political soulmate. I have huge areas of disagreement with Obama, this being one of them, but I think he’s honestly doing what he thinks is best.
The problem with the “we’ll primary you” attitude is that unless you have someone credible in the wings we have a good chance of losing the seat and automatically lose power. Without power we can’t make changes. Our first step should be to build up the local “stables.”
raven
@AxelFoley: You are drillin a dry hole here. The line it is drawn. . .
? Martin
@cahuenga: Fair enough, but NAFTA was also unique. It couldn’t have worked with any other combination of countries as it required land borders, the three nations were generally aligned on forming a regional trade agency, which isn’t what the trans-pacific deal is about, and the US had an almost uniquely dominant hand in that arrangement, which also isn’t true in this case.
pamelabrown53
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
Thank you. Did not know.
cahuenga
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
Well before, essentially when the treaty was signed by Bush. It didn’t come up for ratification until Clinton was in office.
different-church-lady
@? Martin:
I readily admit I’m not informed enough to tell what TTP really is, but based on the qualities of the shrieking, it sure as heck seems like you’re right.
different-church-lady
@AxelFoley:
Say, you’re new to Left-Blogistan, aren’t you?
Belafon
@? Martin: I heard a story in my US history class in college about George Washington walking down to the Senate to get some advice on a treaty, one part of the Advise and Consent. It was the last time he, or any president, went to get advice.
cahuenga
@? Martin:
So your statement was false. And you are promoting a bill without knowing it’s content.
Sorry, not going there with you.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@cahuenga:
So were the details not known until after Bush I signed it, or were they known during the actual negotiations?
AFAIK, the treaty is still being negotiated and has not been signed, which is why I’m asking. I think Obama is trying to get fast track approval before he signs it, which is what all of the fuss is about.
Fair Economist
@gene108:
How about the idea that our laws shouldn’t be subject to review and cancellation by secret panels appointed by multinational corporations?
Betty Cracker
@? Martin: Not so. I’ve seen plenty of comments from folks, including our own Kay, who recognize the realities of globalization and the inevitability of trade deals. They’d rather see a bill that had better worker representation in the drafting stage and more concessions that help workers and the Democrats who are being asked to support this bill. If this is an all or nothing situation, it’s because that’s how the bill proponents set it up, with the “fast track” amounting to TPP passage. Kindly don’t dip us in garlic and call us stinky.
? Martin
@raven: Yeah. The problem with this approach – as it was with healthcare, is that you can’t negotiate from a position with no leverage, and we have no leverage here. I don’t mean that we can’t primary people, of course we can do that – I mean that we’re already losing badly to the economic forces at play here, so a trade deal really can’t make that any worse. There’s more upside potential than there is downside risk. That was also true with healthcare. We were negotiating against doing nothing, against legislators that honestly did not care if people died of preventable things, and we are in the same boat here.
Let me put a question to the people that oppose this:
What is the consequence to foreign countries if this deal isn’t signed? How do US workers benefit from their current position if the deal isn’t signed? Nobody fucking cares about protecting progressive (or conservative) principles – a lesson the 20 GOP fucksticks running for president have yet to learn. I’m a machinist in Ohio, how does not signing this deal make my life better from where it is now?
Fair Economist
@Emma:
No, you lose the seat if you oppose in the general. If you threaten to primary and can’t execute the threat you look weak, but there’s no effect on the general, so the seat is not at risk.
lowercase steve
Strategic use of primaries is a key tool in fighting for a progressive agenda. Obviously you don’t want to primary centrist democrats in districts where a strong progressive will get trounced but there are certainly democrats that vote to the right of what their district could support….and those folks should be challenged.
You have to participate in the political process; you can’t just make a lot of noise, vote for a president you like and call it a day. One person (even the president, even one significantly to the left of Obama) does not a progressive system make.
cahuenga
And I have to say, an expectation of transparency is not intrinsically emo, it should be the standard.
Knowing the contents and implications of what you are supporting is not emo, whatever the hell that smear means.
? Martin
@Betty Cracker: Without fast track, you’re going to have every lobbyist on earth carving out their particular industry. We can’t sit here and bitch about Citizen’s United allowing corporations to buy congress, and then deny the reality that once bought these guys won’t put amendment after amendment on this deal until there’s nothing left, or until everything that we might want out of it has been gutted. Fast track is exactly the same mechanism as IPAB (which we like, because we understand this) – it’s an all-or-nothing provision to ensure that lobbyists don’t pick this to death.
Honestly, arguing about Fast Track is arguing that the President’s hand ought to be much weaker and the GOP (and therefore corporate) controlled Senate and the GOP (and therefore corporate) controlled House have stronger hands. Does that make any sense at all? Elizabeth Warren, much as I love her, does not have the power to stop Republican amendments.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@cahuenga: Yeah, those were the days, weren’t they? Where working people were actually listened to and their concerns treated with at least feigned respect instead of open laughter, as they are today.
The differences between the two parties on labor have devolved to one party that ignores labor, and one that’s trying their level best to murder labor in an alley.
This bill brings the two parties a little closer to a consistent position, and that position does not have any upside for labor’s interests.
Fair Economist
@? Martin:
No, the difference is that healthcare reform was going to bring huge improvements (which we’ve seen) but many people complained that it wouldn’t bring *enough*. The problem with the trade deal is that it brings many *major* harms, notably loss of sovereignty to corporations and expansion of already excessive copyright and patent monopolies, while the supporters as yet can’t even point to any likely benefits. Obama’s claim for job gains, for example, was abjured by the right-wing think tank that originally said it.
Belafon
You all might get a kick out of this DK diary:
I Will No Longer Vote for the Democrat From Fear of the Alternative
The diarist basically says that if the Democrat doesn’t measure up to his standards, he’ll probably just not vote.
And yes, it’s DK, but at the same time, it’s exactly what we would expect of Democrats.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Fair Economist:
I think that primary opposition is relatively risk-free in local or statewide elections, but I think a lot of longtime Democrats get queasy about it because Carter getting primaried in 1980 often gets blamed for his defeat.
As I said, I think primarying the incumbent in local or statewide elections isn’t as destructive, but that’s why so many Democrats have a knee-jerk reaction against it.
Jimgod
I just love how all the pro-TPP people are trying to equate a trade deal that surrenders more of our copyright and patent law to shadowy tribunals composed of god knows who to a bill that expands access to health insurance. The 2 are utterly unrelated and to equate opposition to one as the same as opposition to the other is the height of intellectual bankruptcy. Will your life be improved, Martin if this thing fails? Probably not. Will it be worsened if the thing passes? Signs point to yes. Ergo, the least bad option is to oppose the deal and the fast-track. Simple as that.
Fair Economist
@? Martin:
We can pass fast track *after* the treaty can actually be read by the public – if it’s a good treaty. Panic about lobbyist carve-outs is largely a sham argument anyway; everybody knows that in this sort of deal they would effectively be poison pills.
Omnes Omnibus
@? Martin: How does signing this particular deal make life better for that machinist?
Foreign trade is happening and will continue to happen. Tariffs are low. What are the advantages that this agreement gives us?
Jim C.
+1 on Betty’s very first post of the thread.
About time there was a bit more magnetic pull leftward rather than just moving rightward a little more slowly.
/Overton Window
cahuenga
@? Martin:
I don’t know if you’ve seen the list of advisors but that has already happened.
Mike J
@lowercase steve: If somebody wanted to primary, say, Patty Murray, I don’t think anybody would give a rat’s ass what DFA thought about her.
The only people a primary threat will work against are candidates in marginal districts.
lowercase steve
@Belafon:
Now that on the other hand is just dumb. You do your best to get the most left-wing candidates that can feasibly win in whatever race (using primaries!) and you vote for the most left-wing candidate that is available in the general election (even if they are to the right of you) because this is about strategy not about purity and feeling good.
catclub
@MDC: Be sure to read Andrew Tobias on this. I think he makes sense on what the motivations are.
http://andrewtobias.com/column/
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@El Caganer: 60 day public viewing and comment period before TPP vote.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
So here’s a question for the anti-Fast Track folks: how would you feel about Fast Track being approved and then having the actual TPP approval be voted down by the Senate? Which portion is more important, killing Fast Track or killing TPP?
I can see killing TPP itself being a hill worth dying on. Fast Track, not so much.
Jim C.
+1 on Betty’s post #42 as well.
Jimgod
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): Considering fast track precludes any and all amendments, I’d say both are hills worth dying on.
Fair Economist
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
And back then it probably *was* much more of an issue, because there were a lot of swing voters. But politics is about power, and if there’s no loss from hurting you you’re going to get hurt a lot. Even if we were back in the 20th century and contentious primaries carried a cost we’d still have to do them *sometimes*. And in the current highly polarized era the cost is minimal.
Eljai
@raven: Well, that’s something. But I heard on NPR this morning that Paul Ryan is for it. I has anguish.
cahuenga
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Mark my words – Hillary isn’t going to commit to anything until it’s a done deal.
Chris
@different-church-lady:
The last time this came up, I pointed out that there was a fairly good rationale for ACA supporters – 1) single-payer and public option may have been preferable, but neither was realistic given the makeup of Congress; 2) opportunities like this were rare, it would be decades before we’d have another, and something had to be done because health care prices had started rising at an alarming rate; 3) the ACA was that “something,” because imperfect as it might be, it was still a vast improvement over the previous system. (That was proven right by the implementation; the biggest problem with the ACA so far has been something that wasn’t in the bill, but was forced onto it by the scum on the Supreme Court).
There might’ve been hippie-punching thrown in (and the hippies were dishing it out too), but there was also a fairly sound, easy to understand, and, well, true reasoning behind why The Bill should be passed, not killed.
This bill, well…
@? Martin:
Precisely – but that goes both ways. How does the U.S. benefit if this bill is signed? How does signing this deal make your life, or anyone else’s, better than it is now? What’s the crisis – the equivalent of rising health care costs for the ACA – that makes it so important that we pass this bill? The title implies that it’s ridiculous for DFHs to treat this as a hill worth dying on, but what makes it a hill worth dying on for Obama? What’s so important that he’s using up so much of his last-two-years political capital on this issue in particular? The DFHs didn’t start this debate, the people who want the TPP do.
Lt. Condition
@? Martin: It probably won’t affect you, directly, at all, in part because NAFTA already screwed the rust belt.
But that’s the thing. Everything that’s been leaked about this deal makes it that much easier for other sectors to offshore more of the economy with no accountability. When you say “we’re losing badly,” who the hell is we? It’s certainly not large American corporations, which are doing just fine, thank you. It’s workers who’re losing badly, and allowing even more capital mobility without labor standard that can be viably enforced palpably hurts anyone whose job can be moved overseas.
People oppose this because, like NAFTA, there’s a very real possibility that doing nothing is better for workers. It’s not that a trade deal is inherently bad, but if it doesn’t include labor standards and enforcement mechanisms with teeth, then historical precedent says that workers are going to get screwed by it.
chopper
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
another question: does anybody actually think that letting the republicans in the senate amend this trade deal will actually make it better?
Keith
@? Martin:
Quick thought experiment – who do you think is pulling the strings to make as corporate-friendly, nation-averse a trade deal as possible?
Jimgod
@chopper: No, I think letting the Democrats in the Senate amend the deal will make it better, or kill it. The Republicans could also kill it with amendments. Both options work for me.
? Martin
@lowercase steve:
There’s no point fighting for something you can’t get. You will never get trade policy that is strongly centered on workers rights. You will never get the US – even with Democratic control from top to bottom – to threaten to close trade borders in exchange for workers rights. That’s not how this works. That’s not how this has EVER worked. It’s a fantasy that requires suspending belief in how economics works.
We are eradicating poverty globally faster than at any other period in history. Those increased wages is not only bringing increased worker conditions, it’s also creating new markets for US goods. The solution for US manufacturing is not in the trade deals but in domestic policy. When Apple can sell more iPhones to the Chinese than to Americans, that signals an opportunity for the US to export. That means there are consumers outside the US that have the income to buy quality goods. People are fighting the wrong battle. It’s not 1990 any more. I agree that trade deals shouldn’t be so tipped toward corporations, however the alternative – no deal – is already tipped toward corporations, so the only way to get worker protections included is to support a deal that a Democratic president puts forward.
Fair Economist
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
My take, based on what’s leaked and the fact that the Administration is being more secretive about this deal than previous trade deals, is that TPP needs to be stopped. I don’t really care how. Passing Fast Track and killing TPP is OK – but if we kill Fast Track TPP is effectively dead, so I’d like to stop it here if possible. I don’t see any benefit to passing Fast Track and killing TPP.
Also, the Fast Track requirement that trade deals only be considered for 60 days is too short, so it’s bad in and of itself.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Jimgod:
Since fast track precludes all amendments, the Senate kills it and sends it back to the negotiators. If nothing else, it’s faster than letting the Republicans dick around for months until it has to be put out of its misery because of all of the crappy amendments.
People keep telling me that TPP is a bad deal that can’t be fixed with amendments. If that’s the case, let fast track go through and then kill it all at once.
Fair Economist
@? Martin:
I don’t agree with “never”. That’s a really long time. But, in any case, even if I can’t get perfection, I can get things to be *better*. And things will be better without the TPP.
Jimgod
@? Martin: Bull. Trade will happen regardless if this things passes or not. And why should we sacrifice our livelihoods and standard of living to help poor slobs over in China and St. Elsewhere. Let their governments take care of that, just like ours should be taking care of its citizens first. What a concept!
Kay
Well, I disagree. If the pro-trade deal caucus in the Democratic Party had offered something in return for what is a VERY tough vote for many Democratic members of Congress we wouldn’t be in this mess.
You’re starting at the end of what has been a long fight and handing complete responsibility for this state of play to liberals.
That’s not fair. Too, this thing gets worse and worse. Yesterday they excluded public employees from TAA, trade assistance. Trade assistance itself is an ass cover for Democrats who support trade deals. They’re now going to use it as one more way to smear public employees? I mean, come on. That’s just weird.
Maybe one of you can explain to me why it was necessary for the Administration to go out and not just oppose labor unions on this, but then try to discredit them on trade. It is simply not true that labor unions “don’t understand” trade. They’re better informed on trade deals than 90% of the public.
This ISN’T like the health care law. Not at all. Obama is relying 95% on GOP support. Fact. If the way he has decided to secure that is to attack his own side then I’m not going along.
Laertes
I love and admire President Obama, but he’s just wrong on this deal and I’m glad to see DFA standing up to him.
Jimgod
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): The chances are greater for defeat if it is bogged down for months by amendment after amendment. I’m for a comprehensive strategy of either changing it to make it better or blowing it up. I don’t want to put all my eggs in one basket, one vote.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Fair Economist:
I guess I disagree that TPP is automatically dead if fast track doesn’t pass. I think the Republican plan is to kill fast track and then dick around with amendments until 2016, when a Republican savior replaces the evil Obama and then signs TPP.
chopper
@Jimgod:
yeah but the democrats aren’t in charge of the senate. if this thing gets amended its going to be the goopers doing the job.
different-church-lady
@Chris:
But if you read the usual suspects, you’d never have known that at the time.
Archon
I trust the President, especially since Obamacare has worked exactly the way he said it would but I sure would like him to come on TV or something and explain why Republicans, who not only despise working people but have fought him tooth and nail on every single policy, big and small are suddenly all for working with him to pass this trade deal.
I think that would really help people like me who trust the President but are wary of trade deals and think that whatever Republicans want is probably bad for most Americans.
Botsplainer
The trade ship done sailed decades ago as a means of encouraging investment in the developing world, ideally diminishing the need for excessive foreign aid and spreading enough wealth around so that those polities would have stable, reasonably materially satisfied workers.
Once you start these pacts, you have trouble with other regions if you refuse to extend the same courtesy.
In theory, it’s a good deal, and everybody gets something. Overall, these things have materially improved many aspects of economic life in the developing world. Practically, however, problems arose over the rapacious nature of the skimmer class. There is no quantity of positive numbers in an electronic ledger too large – it’s always grow, grow, grow, more, more, more until the entire economic structure AND political institutions get threatened by the weight of all those digits. About the only way to address that is by higher tax rates and more comprehensive financial, corporate, environmental and labor regs designed to cross borders, and ‘Murka is too broken for that, although the pacts are necessary for a functioning multipolar world.
Belafon
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Obama is changing the rules on who qualifies for overtime. He’s tried to change the rules for how unions could be formed and prevent businesses from blocking elections.
How is listening to both unions and business anti-union? Other Democratic presidents, such as FDR, have done the same thing.
He knows that he has to get worker protections in order to get this deal passed. He’s talked about those.
different-church-lady
@Kay:
Talk about a low bar…
Kay
Why are Democrats in Congress supposed to support what is a GOP priority and get NOTHING in return?
Less than nothing. A lot of them will get hurt. Despite the adminsitrations claims to the contrary. NO Democrat is promoting their “yes” position. As of last week, every single (proposed) Dem candidate for the Senate opposes this.
Why should they do this? Shouldn’t they get something?
I mean for God’s sake. Yesterday they were expecting them to vote to cut Medicare to pass the trade deal! In return for what is a pittance in “trade assistance” they were supposed to go on record as cutting Medicare and passing the trade deal they hate. It gets worse every day.
Betty Cracker
@? Martin: I brought up fast track to counter your point about opponents not being willing to offer alternatives. I think it’s generally acknowledged that passing fast track is tantamount to passing TPP, so it makes sense for people who want to change or replace this bill to oppose it.
As for the argument that opposing fast track weakens the president’s hand and strengthens the corporate position, it’s hard to see how the corporate position could really be any stronger since their armies of lobbyists wrote the damn bill. If we can’t get protections for workers that would make the current deal better, I’d rather see GOP senators have to go on record vote by vote to grease the skids for their benefactors — and Democrats go on record opposing the giveaways or extracting concessions. As it is, PBO is asking Democrats to support a bill that their constituents hate with nothing to show for it.
Applejinx
Seems Bernie Sanders has been pulling procedural stunts to resist Fast Track because he hates the TPP so bad. I’m inclined to be patient with Obama advocating stuff, but I’m going to turn to Bernie (who is also privy to what’s going on here) for the final take on what to do, because Bernie is all about economics, first last and all the time.
And Bernie hates TPP, and is fighting Fast Track real hard.
It could be a real interesting positioning moment if he LOSES and TPP goes through, because at that point Bernie is on the same side as a whole bunch of Teahadis, raging loudly against a deal that is just shit and pretty much corporations taking the reins from nation-states to destroy things like New Zealand’s nationwide pharmaceutical buys and countries’ ability to run antismoking campaigns. It really is shit, a noticeable escalation in what was already shit.
I’d like to see TPP fail (not sure whether Fast Track helps or hinders that, ‘cos I’m not privy to Obama’s calculations). If we do not see TPP fail, I intend to see Bernie on the warpath letting EVERYBODY know what’s gone down. He can communicate that well, and he has a track record of fighting bravely and intelligently against the shit going down.
cahuenga
@? Martin:
Good god I couldn’t pack more false assertions into one comment if I tried..
Laertes
So this was pretty cool. I just phoned my rep’s Washington office and asked “Where does the Congressman stand on today’s vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?”
I’m expecting kind of a long, meandering answer. Maybe something patronizing starting with “It’s important to…” blah blah blah.
Instead the guy just says “No.”
I quickly thanked him and then hung up.
Laertes
I’m equally happy either way. TPP must die. I don’t care if it dies on the scene, in the ambulance, or in the ER, so long as it dies somewhere along the line.
Fair Economist
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
I agree it’s not automatically dead, but it would have a very rough road. With 12 countries participating, any amendment has to be approved by all other 11, so anything beyond the most trivial amendment will probably make the whole deal fail. However, the Republican plan is to pass Fast Track, not grandstand on amendments, because their leadership is all-in on Fast Track in both houses and they’re providing the overwhelming majority of yes votes. The Tea Party opposition minority isn’t planning, I don’t think; they’re not a very coherent group. Mostly they’re probably thinking “Obama bad, anti-Obama good” although the sovereignty issues are big with their base.
Chris
@different-church-lady:
Who gives a shit what the usual suspects said? The point is that the people in charge pushing for the bill had a coherent and worthwhile response to their critics. What’s the response this time? So far, it’s been the traditional round of Beltway hippie-punching, and the traditional round of Beltway promises that rising tides will lift all boats and shrugs that any economic factors that screw workers are basically immutable laws of God and physics and there’s just nothing the government can do about it.
KG
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): actually, in the modern era, pretty much every sitting president who was primaried lost in the general – Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, GHW Bush in ’92. Beyond that, a primary challenge could put an otherwise safe seat into play or move a contested seat into the safe category. See, for example: Angle, Sharon.
lowercase steve
@? Martin:
Yeah, this is a strawman. There are numerous graduations between pro-TPP and expropriating from the expropriators/closed-economy autarky.
And it is not just about getting more democrats in power…it is getting more progressive democrats in power (subject to the reality of what districts can support). That will also help with domestic policy…I supported the ACA because it was the best we could get given the make-up of congress…but I would have preferred something more substantial. That takes a legislature with more progressive democrats in power.
ruemara
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: facts are anathema when you’ve gots opinions.
Fast track authority is not the trade deal. It just gives Obama a way to jump over our august governing body of Congress. Which is why it will fail. There’s no way they’ll allow that, meaning THAT, man to have authority over them. The trade deal itself will also fail, since once the negotiations are done under such a set of circumstances, it will be a toxic, unpalatable stew that neither side will want. If it fails under Obama, and a Republican takes office without a flip of the House, it will return in a mildly less toxic fashion. If we lose Senate & House, with a Republican in office, we’ll be fucked harder and faster than you thought possible. It will return under Clinton and might be just as good or bad as whatever is presented now.
And unions? You mean the same block that was for the pipeline? And the problematic police unions who stand with Walker, Kasich and murderous gangster cops? Ain’t nothing in this world snow driven pure, even snow. Most of the jobs that are affected are manufacturing jobs that are already decimated because of overseas outsourcing. I don’t see anyone with a legislative fix for that.
Kay
@different-church-lady:
The President and his trade team’s assertions that labor leaders don’t understand trade is false. They’ve put forth facts that the prior trade deals have not lived up to promises, including OBAMA’s prior trade deals and the administration has responded by either questioning their motives or telling them they are operating under irrational fear.
That’s not a response. They deserve to be treated as the people who have followed US trade deals since 1974, because that’s what they are. Further, they have made US trade deals BETTER for working people and they have done that by applying pressure.
lol
If you’re going primary Democrats, a Presidential cycle is the one to do it in since the better Democrats will actually have chance of getting elected.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The best explanation I’ve seen is he sees it as part of his broad goal of internationalism, what was called “the pivot to Asia”, advancing the trade deal opens channels for cooperation, environmental negotations and a check on Russia were the two thing I remember from a blog post I can’t quite place right now. Kilgore, maybe?
dmbeaster
@Zandar:
And passing TPP does? Either principles matter or cult of personality matters. I’m thinking that emphasis on principles brings in the 2016 vote. We’ll see how much Obama campaigns in 2016 for his Democratic replacement.
Kay
@ruemara:
This trade deal doesn’t have much to do with manufacturing jobs. The President is pretty much correct when he says prior trade deals made that objection moot, and in any event this one focuses on other sectors.
wmd
@CONGRATULATIONS!: DFA is the ongoing organization from Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy.
Chris
@Kay:
Yep. Obama’s response has done far more to make me skeptical of the TPP than anything his critics have ever said. It’s been the response of somebody who’s got nothing and is furious that he’s being called on it.
Kay
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Which would have been fine but they left themselves wide open when they started with “job creation for the middle class”.
Nope. That isn’t what it’s about.
I get why they did it, politically. It’s tangible, it goes along with the Democrats goal of focus on working and middle class, etc. but it isn’t true and not only isn’t it true, when people pushed back they tried to discredit the critics.
“Pivot to Asia”? Okay. Then why are we making up numbers on “middle class jobs”? Specifics, too! “650,000” or “millions”.
cahuenga
@Betty Cracker:
Exactly. Corporatists on both sides of the aisle generally support TPP. And with the exception of Huckabee all republican presidential candidates support it. Amending the bill really isn’t a concern. That horse is already gone..
joel hanes
Let me add my voice to the chorus of partisan Democrats who detest and oppose TPP and TPA.
The leaked “intellectual property” provisions are counterproductive, and serve to export the worst features of America’s regrettable DMCA to other signatories.
And there’s this :
http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/
Just Some Fuckhead
@Keith:
I want to take a shot on this one because it seems familiar:
Back Obama on a shitty bill and then claim nothing else was possible after the fact.
Kay
@Chris:
The “fear” charge just sets my teeth on edge because you know what? Economic insecurity isn’t irrational fear.
It’s real. They ARE economically insecure. The capacity to embrace risk is tied to income and assets. This idea that they are somehow failing to embrace opportunity is maddening. WHY are they worried? Because they should be!
EZSmirkzz
@? Martin:
Hardly reflexive, since the TPP negotiations have been going on for five years, although given the results of NAFTA, once burned twice shy seems like a good reflexive action.
As for fighting to get worker protections in there, how does one go about that, other than to point out, as I have done, my objections to the deal as reported by WikiLeaks, and with various comments from Democratic Senators and Representatives whom have seen the language of the deal and expressed their objections to it?
You wish to reflexively support a trade deal that you know nothing about, while condescendingly condemning my objections by telling me what you know about the need for secrecy in treaties and deals, which has been going on for two centuries and also too, forevah, while concern trolling me on the bugaboo of a future Republican President or shudder the thought, a deal with Russia.
Aside from gnosticism, what have you got?
Citizen Alan
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
It wasn’t just that he got primaried, it’s that Teddy Kennedy kept his fight going practically until the night before Carter gave his acceptance speech. Looking back, I think a lot of people in the Kennedy camp thought it would have been better for Reagan to win because they mistakenly thought he’d be easier to beat in 1984.
Chris
@Kay:
Yeah. And the response is “well, look, you’ve already been screwed, so one more bill won’t make a big difference?” Great Scott! I can’t imagine why that isn’t selling well!
Kay
Passage of fast track is passage of the trade deal. There won’t be a single member of Congress who votes for fast track and then says they didn’t understand the trade deal they read so must now vote no, because that’s the only possible other option.
That doesn’t make any sense and if any of them try it they should be ashamed.
dmbeaster
@? Martin:
What on Earth makes you think that lobbyists aren’t already stuffing the TPP with goodies while simultaneously being protected by secrecy, and that is somehow a better policy making process than disclosure.
Do you think wise and impartial old men are carefully crafting a treaty in secret? That is wildly naive.
Kay
@Chris:
I think the “manufacturing jobs” works for the pro-trade deal caucus because then we can all sigh and say “why won’t those people who make stuff just admit it’s over for them and all go work for Uber”?
That’s the general theme, right? These dinosaurs won’t embrace change! Just ignore the fact that labor unions changed when manufacturing went and they are not the same people and they don’t do the same jobs.
Frankensteinbeck
The ‘it should not be a secret’ argument overturned by information buried way the Hell down in this article, assuming it’s telling the truth, and I have no reason to think it isn’t.
The ‘should amendments be allowed?’ is still an important question, but this information changes the debate for me. I was disturbed by the idea that the treaty might be secret up until the point it was voted on. Now that I know it will not be a secret, and there will be plenty of time to weigh in with only amendments on the line, my major objection has been removed. I need to reconsider if I care about what’s left.
Hat tip to @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet for pointing out the article, but I thought it was a point so important it needed repeating.
EZSmirkzz
@AxelFoley:
Don’t even get me started on original me tooiosm thinking.
boatboy_srq
@Betty Cracker: Agreed. But that’s a voter-participation equation, not an issue-organization funding one. For every minimally-financed libprog outfit, there’s a thousand Reichwing shriekers whinging about George Soros and the Liebrul Media and the rest of the nonsense – while AEI, ALEC, FRC, ATR and the rest of the Reichwingnut alphabet soup amass many times more lucre and feign innocence (or poverty or both). Votes are far more important than issue-politics funding: but without at least some spending, the issues won’t translate into votes, and the orgs that are pushing the issues can’t compete effectively for dollars and hence recognition (so far), and fall prey to the downsides of narrow focus (example: HRC is great for LGBTQ issues, but horrible for labor or racial ones, and there are people who value both who refuse material support for HRC because of this). I’m all for mobilization; I’m just tired of having some handful of starry-eyed activists in a warehouse expected to somehow offset the efforts of whole conservatist enterprises with thousands of FTEs and better voter data than the party they
ownsupport.Kay
@Chris:
A lot of it about reducing barriers for agriculture, which is why some Republicans support it.
But that isn’t convenient for the pro-trade deal caucus to mention, because no one thinks agricultural jobs are the gateway to the middle class or “21st century”!
They’re right too. They’re not.
Betty Cracker
The New Yorker has a piece up entitled “Why Does Obama Want This Trade Deal So Badly?” Here’s an excerpt:
The piece ultimately fails to answer the question posed in the title.
Knowbody
Can we just admit that Obama is a shit president and agree that nominating Hillary is an even worse idea?
If you take the stimulus, the failure to do anything about prosecuting bank CEOs or Republican war criminals, the disaster that is Obamacare, expanding the war in Iraq and Afganistan, absolute failure on dealing with the mortgage crisis or student loans, what the fuck makes any of you trust this asshole on free trade?
And how is anyone still wondering why 2014 was the lowest midterm turnout in decades?
Bobby Thomson
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): they are one and the same. It’s effectively a cloture vote.
Frankensteinbeck
@Betty Cracker:
Then why not wait to see what’s in the treaty before judging if it will pass? We will have plenty of time, and Fast Track does not change that. I’m not sure I see that our position to oppose will be better or worse once we find out what’s in it. Finding out the treaty will stop being a secret long before it’s voted on really changed this debate for me.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
You’re a smart guy, so how is it that you don’t understand that there is no “it” yet? There is no agreement; there is only an ongoing negotiation. When the negotiations are concluded, then–and only then–will there be an agreement, and we will all be able to see it, in all its glory/horror.
Whatever else might be in the agreement when there finally is an agreement, if it includes anything that looks even a little bit like the NAFTA investor-state dispute-settlement process, I will fight hard to see it not ratified.
The emoprogs’ objective in opposing fast-track is to make sure that there is never a deal, of any kind, because if Congress can nit-pick an agreement, then by definition the USTR is not negotiating in good faith, and none of the other parties will say “yes” to anything.
Senator Warren, for all her good qualities, has lost her fucking mind on this. Either that, or she thinks every economist of the last two centuries is wrong about the overall case for free trade. On balance, net of winners and losers, free trade has been absolutely and unequivocally good for Americans, and there is no principled argument that can be made to the contrary.
Betty Cracker
@boatboy_srq: Well, but Republicans have most of the money since the moneyed people flock to that party. I think it’s as simple as that rather than a failure of will on the part of progressives to marshal resources effectively. (Though they could do better at that for sure, especially here in FL, dog help us!) Won’t Republicans as currently configured always enjoy a massive financial advantage as the handmaidens of the plutocrat class?
burnspbesq
@Knowbody:
No. And if you seriously believe that, there is no hope for you to ever engage in an intelligent conversation with anyone on any topic.
It’s unimaginable to me that anyone could really be as stupid as you appear to be.
Cacti
Maybe they can just get Sherrod Brown to call anyone who supports it a sexist.
Bobby Thomson
@KG: a symptom of weakness, not its cause.
joel hanes
@burnspbesq:
if it includes anything that looks even a little bit like the NAFTA investor-state dispute-settlement process, I will fight hard
valliantly, even, but in the rearguard.
Because by then it will be far too late to derail this freight train.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
C-Span’s home page says the House vote is going to be around 1:00 EDT.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
lol
@wmd:
DFA is an email list and not much else.
I guess I’m pissing into the wind trying to explain how the effectiveness of the 50 state strategy is almost entirely myth.
cahuenga
@Frankensteinbeck:
If Fast Track is approved I’m convinced that TPP is a done deal. Republicans largely support TPP and the majority of resistance is coming from Democrats (which should tell you something).
Kay
This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about:
17,500 service workers denied Trade Adjustment Assistance since 2014 stand to benefit if Congress acts → http://go.wh.gov/7c8fbc #LeadOnTrade
We already had trade assistance. They’re now claiming restoring the trade assistance we already had is a benefit of the trade deal and voting “no” on the trade deal is denying trade assistance, the trade assistance people already had but lost in 2014 when they didn’t reauthorize it.
In a way it doesn’t matter because trade assistance is just a way for Democrats to act as if they’re responding to the disruption caused by trade deals, it’s a tiny amount of money in the scheme of things, but can they not even get THAT?
They have to double count AND then use btwn 450 and 700 million in funding to claim the Democrats who vote “no” are somehow screwing service workers?
cahuenga
@burnspbesq:
The one crucial difference between you and Senator Warren is that she has read the bill and is speaking from an informed point of view.
Betty Cracker
@Frankensteinbeck: It’s my understanding that fast track limits review to 60 days. Is that what you mean by plenty of time? It doesn’t sound like enough time to review a massive bill that affects 40% of global commerce and marshal opposition if it sucks. It’s also my understanding that fast track eliminates amendments and filibusters and makes passage contingent on a simple majority. Given that the most evil Republicans are all on board with TPP and their party controls congress, passage of fast track makes it more likely they can ram it through.
fuckwit
@Kay: bravo, that’s the best description of why the glibertatian agenda doesn’t fly so well with everyone: it’s fundamentally a privileged agenda. gambling, i.e. privatizing social security and handing it to the wall street den of iniquity, is great fun if you have nothing to lose. if you have a precious little something, the risk of losing it is terrifying
joel hanes
@burnspbesq:
It’s unimaginable to me that anyone could really be as stupid as you appear to be.
Well, that’s easy to fix.
Somewhere in your community or a nearby community is a bar with a large parking lot.
It opens promptly at 6:00 AM, or whatever the earliest legal time is to serve alcohol.
They’ll cash anyone’s paycheck on Fridays.
There are at least two TVs over the bar.
There are at least two pool tables.
The walls are decorated in glowing beer-logo clocks.
Go there at 6:00 AM and listen.
Keith G
@Zandar:
If the Obama coalition is not interested in the act of representative governing, then the Obama coalition is nothing more than a cult of personality.
It seems likely that tens of millions of potential Democratic voters are either confused or already negatively disposed towards TPP. They are not convinced by the current happy talk emanating from the White House. Given the last couple of decades, they are justified in these feelings.
I do not see how a political coalition that is insensitive to the needs and feelings of its grassroots can ultimately hold together.
Knowbody
@burnspbesq: it’s unimaginable to me how any actual liberal can still trust this president.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@lol: The Story of 2006 is Howard Dean. Howard Dean is Magic. Six years of Bush, five years of Afghanistan, three-plus years in Iraq, Katrina, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley… .These things were and are irrelevant. There is only Howard. And only Howard can lead us back. Howard is the Way.
Cacti
@burnspbesq:
Senator Warren is the Dennis Kucinich of the upper chamber of Congress. High on bluster, low on results.
Although, in DK’s defense, it didn’t take him until age 46 to realize that the GOP sucks.
Bobby Thomson
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): TPP is not automatically dead if fast track passes. But if fast track passes TPP will definitely be approved. It’s the choice of a firing squad now or a round of Most Deadly Game.
FlipYrWhig
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Maybe labor shouldn’t have decided to be a bunch of bigots and culture warriors when the 1960s rolled around. Oh well, I’m sure things will look up for the cause at some point in the _next_ 50 years.
different-church-lady
@cahuenga: Wait, how could she have read the bill if it’s ENTIRELY SECRET!!!
burnspbesq
@joel hanes:
I respectfully disagree. Regardless of what some crackpots seem to think, my view is that the exclusive means, under the Constitution, for the United States to enter into an agreement of this kind is by treaty, and it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty. If the deal is as bad for Democratic constituencies as some people fear it might be, getting 34 “no” votes should be child’s play.
FlipYrWhig
@Keith G:
I don’t think “tens of millions of people” know anything about any news story or political debate.
Keith
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): This is the best contrast between how much was known prior to NAFTA’s fast-track and the current process under the TPP.
First let us stipulate what is common between the two histories – the public, and Congress in general do not have a chance to see the full text of the agreements negotiated till they are finished. (Though before ratification).
We heard and talked about a great deal more concerning NAFTA for two reasons – the agreement was signed (Bush 1) before fast-track authority made that an up-or-down vote. It was at that point that the full agreement came under broader legislative scrutiny. But, even before that time advisers (such as Wessel, linked above), were a key source providing glimpses into the developing language as it existed in context.
We have no such avenue for disclosure (unless you are counting Wikileaks) available today. Frankly, given the tight lid kept on the text and revisions, the heavy compartmentalization described by Wessel, there is little chance for understanding how all these things fit together till the deal is signed and awaits ratification.
You suggest (separately from the linked reply) that one option is to let Fast-track be granted, for then one outcome is to have TPP voted down. This presumptively being preferable to nit-picking the details of the deal – or massaging the same with related component deals (that happened with NAFTA, the impact of those deals being really zero, the ancillary deals – environment, worker retraining are hinted to already be part of TPP).
Here is an alternative. Have Obama sign the deal if he so wishes, but do not grant him Fast-track authority. Let the Congress actually do some heavy lifting an propose changes and improvements. If those so alter the negotiated landscape then back to discussions between each countries’ trade representatives this goes.
I grant you that this alternative likely means the TPP would not pass within the time-frame of the Obama administration – but, so what? It is not as if nominally US corporations will stop manufacturing in Asia or importing goods from the Pacific Rim. At least this gives everyone a chance to examine the deal and decide whether they like the component parts and the whole – without the all-or-nothing Hobson’s choice foisted on them by Fast Track.
Cacti
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Disagree. For 2016, we have a shiny new (figuratively speaking) great white hopeless from Vermont.
cahuenga
@different-church-lady:
Open to read by congresscritters only, who are banned from revealing its contents.
Kay
@fuckwit:
Democrats seem to have grasped this on some intellectual level but they aren’t feeling it. They aren’t feeling it because they aren’t economically insecure. Personally.
Telling someone whi is economically insecure their fears are irrational is not responsive, because it isn’t true.
burnspbesq
@Cacti:
That doesn’t necessarily trouble me. Somebody has to be the lone voice crying out in the wilderness, and notwithstanding my disagreements with her on this issue, she is damn good in that role.
EZSmirkzz
Also too
FlipYrWhig
@lol: Especially when the people elected by the vaunted 50 State Strategy included Heath Shuler hisself. The 50 State Strategy elected… conservadems and Blue Dogs, as befitting the person who said he wanted to be the candidate of people with confederate flag stickers on their pickup trucks. The Democratic majority was built on an influx of people at the right-hand side of the Democratic Party. This idea that it had some sort of “Overton Window” effect is poppycock crossed with balderdash with a soupcon of pure bullshit.
joel hanes
@burnspbesq:
I respectfully disagree.
Well, sir, we’ll just have to see what ensues.
But I have a very bad feeling about this one.
Peale
@MDC: Yep. Even if I think that this is probably going to be a much better trade deal for labor and the environment than we would have gotten under republican negotiators, I’m still not certain that is enough to make me want to support another one. They aren’t popular. If the point of this is some geopoltical crap involving making certain china doesn’t take over the region – so what?
Cacti
@burnspbesq:
I’m willing to cut her some slack insofar as she has had very little time in the Senate to leave a tangible mark there. But to truly be the heir to Ted Kennedy as her fans like to think of her, she’ll need to learn to deliver results along with talking the talk.
Kay
@Betty Cracker:
Well, 6 months ago John Kerry was one of the “650,000” jobs people so his predictions were much more modest. Free trade think tank people stopped making job creation claims after NAFTA because they obviously can’t predict such a complex series of factors over time and they wildly over-promised with NAFTA.
Why is John Kerry making job creation claims? It doesn’t inspire confidence. They can support this all they want. Telling people it is about “US jobs” is a political campaign. Now that they’re IN a political campaign, they can’t complain if the other side fights back.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@burnspbesq: This is true. I’ve never understood why Sherrod Brown or Sheldon Whitehouse never get any internet love. For that matter, on paper, Martin O’Malley should be the darling of D-Kos and maybe a few other sites, but he seems to be ignored.
some guy
What an awesome post to wake up to. Go DFA go. Any primary challenges they mount against pro TPP demo we will be in for 20 dollars each. Nice
Peale
@Keith: The problem with that is that it kind of defeats the purpose of negotiating if it goes back to the Senate for “revisions.” So what do we then tell the trade partners – hey? I know we said xxx about rice subsidies in exchange for lifting tariffs on sugar, but we’re keeping those tarriffs. However, you must still screw your farmers or the deals off. Our congress said so. We do have too many congressmen who belief that the point of negotiations is to get your way on everything.
chopper
@different-church-lady:
how could she have read the bill when negotiations aren’t done yet?
how do we know the stuff she’s read is what’s going to be in the bill that ends up on the senate floor?
burnspbesq
@Cacti:
Well put. I’ll sign on to that.
gogol's wife
@gene108:
You are expressing my feelings too.
Knowbody
It looks like Pelosi is all but announcing the death of TPP fast track on the House Floor right now.
good
fuck Obama.
burnspbesq
@joel hanes:
I’m not saying that your bad feeling is not well-founded. There are a very large number of ways that this deal could turn out to be a shit sandwich. I just think that you and a lot of other people are jumping the gun.
In a perfect world, Obama’s response to this brouhaha would be to take a step back, understand why the Democratic base has its panties in a wad, call in the USTR for consultations, and send him back to the table with a different approach to the issues that are causing the wadded panties. This, alas, doesn’t seem to be that perfect world.
Bruce Webb
@MDC: Loyalty to Obama is no longer the issue. If you look at the list of 19 Firm Yes’s on TPP gathered by CAF you will note that only a handful could even be described as Obama loyalists. If that is the hill that folks like Xandar want to die on they should note that there are no defenders standing by them on Obama’s Alamo.
More to the point. A lot of the 19 are ALREADY on various progressive hit lists and ALREADY scheduled for primary challenges. I for one am not going to shed a tear for the shrinking number of Blue Dogs and the still too influential New Dems.
BruceFromOhio
@burnspbesq:
I’m thinking root cause of this is reflexive conditioning due to NAFTA.
I’m good with fast-track authority, its how the sausage gets made. But this Republican-led Congress is the charlie-foxtrot of American history that could fuck up a sunny day. I can imagine a scenario where the emoprogs find themselves aligned with tea-baggers in chanting for rejecting the trade bill after much acrimony and division. Rupert Murdoch has to be writhing in ecstasy at the parade of chryrons waiting to march.
And my tin-foily-hattedness still leads me to believe it’s all about containing China.
@? Martin, I’d like to hear an answer to your question as well, how does not signing this deal make my life better from where it is now?
And what the hell is up with the Zandar slander? Sheesh, it’s like a FDL flashback.
Knowbody
Pelosi just confirmed her opposition to the bill.
it’s dead.
you lose, Zandar.
Jimgod
I don’t understand the commentators’ on this blog who are so committed to keeping the Democratic Party committed to the failure that is neo-liberalism. I just don’t get it. Is it because it’s Obama pushing it? Is it because one is so certain it will never affect your or your employment or standard of living? This has to stop, the public is over this failed economic philosophy. If the Democratic Party does not move away from it, it’s gonna end up on the trash heap of history.
boatboy_srq
@Betty Cracker: The GOTea has become orthodox by design. ALEC, AEI, FRC, Heritage et al don’t step on each other’s toes too often (which makes the ALEC-v-NRC spat just delicious), and supporters of one are legitimate targets for the rest’s canvassers. On this side there’s some serious purity testing going on: PETA won’t compromise to get something less-than-ideal for animals, and refuses to look at the costs of their proposals in terms of impacted humans; HRC isn’t arsed to look at labor/ethnic issues (why else rate Darden so highly); etc etc. samiam (@12) pointing out how DK (and firedoglake and others) is(are) unsatisfying as progressive venue(s) highlights just how easily fragmented the left is and how difficult it can be for an organization, no matter how well-meaning, to keep its supporters happy and active. Inadequate funding for LibProg outfits isn’t a failure of liberal/progressives’ collective will; it’s unwillingness to accept otherwise-minor faults in our various choices even as we are prepared to accept faults in our candidates and to accept unpalatable policy items as compromises with the GOTea. The Reichwing appears able to agree-to-disagree on multiple issues at the org level so long as the elected officials are ne near-lockstep; we seem to have that completely the other way around, and it isn’t helping us.
There’s also the problem of who would replace those primaried over this. Emma’s point (@56) that
is salient, as is lowercase steve’s (@117)
Threatening sitting Congresscritters because they are insufficiently Orthodox LibProg without an electable candidate ready to step into the campaign is not a solution no matter how immediately satisfying it may sound. The Left needs better organization and better candidates (as BJ has discussed at length a number of times), and for that we really do need more $$s. DFA is confusing cart with horse here, and showcasing just how laughable LibProg issue organizations can be through squandering otherwise-retainable seats in search of partywide issue purity without a useful plan to achieve that.
different-church-lady
@chopper: How do we know we’re not just brains in vats?
All I know is nobody knows anything, but we’re all obligated to take sides based on that.
Southern Beale
I don’t have a problem with this. Constantly getting thrown under the bus hasn’t helped progressive causes all that much.
different-church-lady
@burnspbesq:
I’ll agree, but I’ll also note she has a hell of a stronger chance of doing that then Martha Coakley (or 98% of the others in congress) ever would have.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
TAA vote:
It failed.
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
@BruceFromOhio:
There’s another problem with the process and it’s the inability to refute claims. Yesterday there was a new claim – the deal had a “minimum wage”. The opponents say that’s not a fair claim but if they refute it they violate the rules they’re bound by.
The way this works it is just very,very difficult to oppose one part of it or influence anything. That’s why they get so infuriated when people say “make a counter-offer!” to the adminstration. They can’t.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Knowbody: Says the stalker.
Oh the whole, I am not a fan of Obama, because not one but two of my oxen have been gored by his admin. But jeez, he’s a hell of a lot better than any of the alternatives that we were presented with, and he’s better than any Republican that’s gotten the office in my lifetime, and better than at least one Dem in that same time span.
As to Hillary, I think she’s a superb choice. Better than Obama by any and all measures.
This next comment has nothing to do with your politics but with your behavior as manifested on this blog: You’re mentally ill. You need some serious help and you need it now. I don’t any nicer way to say it.
burnspbesq
@Jimgod:
It’s really simple. The Democratic Party as currently constituted, warts and all, is the ONLY thing standing between us and Republican rule.
Think of it this way. If you aren’t whole-heartedly in support of the Democratic nominee in 2016, whoever that turns out to be, you are in effect saying that you are perfectly OK with seeing Janice Rogers Brown sitting in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court bench. Is that really what you want?
Knowbody
TAA House vote just failed and fast track authority with it.
it’s dead.
Thank god the “emoprogs” still run this party and not corporate shithead Obama.
Bill
@? Martin:
If Apple is selling iPhones in China, which are made by Chinese workers, how exactly does that benefit anyone in the US besides Apple investors?
You’re making the case against trade deals.
burnspbesq
@different-church-lady:
No argument there. If she could manage the politics of the Harvard Law faculty, the Senate should be a piece of cake (see also Krugman’s famous comment about Bernanke moving from an impossible job to one that was merely difficult). She just has to decide what she wants her legacy to be.
Bobby Thomson
@FlipYrWhig: backing Reagan was a bad call.
different-church-lady
Oh, drat, now we’ll never know if DFA could topple Hillary.
Jimgod
@burnspbesq: So groups and individuals who wish to move the party away from neo-liberalism shouldn’t even try because the Republicans will win? I’m sorry but I genuinely do not follow your line of reasoning. How does a primary challenge to Representatives for the Democratic ballot line result in a Republican President?
Ruckus
Trade deals. We have had them for ages. A lowering of quotas in exchange for something. Someone wins, probably most stay neutral or lose.
What gets to me about this is not the secrecy, that’s a given on anything this big and across so many disparate entities. What gets me is that so many people who have proven to be enemies of the people(republicans) are for it. Now I know that maybe one of two of them have actually read the deal in that closed room but I’d bet that none of them really know what’s in it or understand it at all. And yet, they back the deal. That tells me that their wealthy and corporate backers have told them to. That tells me that I’m going to get nothing better than zero and most likely hugely negatives out of this. The only thing that makes me question this is President Obama is all in on this. That makes me think there are two explanations. First, there is something(s) in this that is really different than other trade bills of the last 200 yrs. Or that the president is using this to rekindle the political process that he seemed to think would work when he first took office. IOW he’s trying to bring the country back together. To do that he’d still reasonably have to have a situation that is not or equally harmful to either side. And I don’t see any trade bill as being neutral, someone always loses.
I’m going with a combination of Martin’s and my ideas. Trade deals happen, trade between countries today is more like corporations having to work around shipping and trade restrictions anymore rather than huge barriers to production or sales.
50-100 yrs ago production happened relatively near the end user, little to no air freight, ships were slow and carried little compared to today. A country had to produce what it used, anything else was prohibitively expensive. Today? Most of us use products every day made in many corners of the world. That’s not going to change till we run out of fuel for transportation. We don’t do as much of the kind of mfg in this country that we used to because it became cost prohibitive compared to other countries. That’s what screwed the mfg sector and labor, people wanting to pay less. If wages had kept pace we could have paid more but our products would be less desirable to other countries. The world, in a trade/production/wage way is leveling out, getting flatter if you will. The end of WWII was an anomaly in history. The major victor country of a large war mainly unscathed, with production capabilities hugely increased and many of trading partners being relatively decimated. The last 50-70 yrs has changed that dramatically, and as well many 3rd world countries have, if not moved up the rankings, they have changed a lot as well. This is the 21st century, for everyone, not the middle of the 20th.
MattR
@Knowbody: So where are all the emo parties to celebrate that millions of jobs won’t be destroyed? Oh right, that was just a claim Zandar created as part of a false equivalency to support Obama.
You are gonna hate to hear this, but you and Zandar are just opposite sides of the same coin. You both make ridiculous, hyprbolic and disingenuous comments because neither of you are willing to budge from the absolutist positions you have staked out.
Keith
@Knowbody:
I know, we were advised earlier that Knowbody isn’t worth listening / replying to. But, seriously, that is weak even on the everlastic metric of internet trolling.
Zandar posts indicating dismay at DFA promising to primary pro-TPP voters. Later in the day Pelosi says she is against TPP personally.
And this means Zandar (who has in his blog posts here been mere reporter, rather supporter of TPP, or Fast Track) lost what precisely?
different-church-lady
@MattR: Except for the part where Zander doesn’t deliberately try to be an asshole.
Botsplainer
I think we need to have a glorious progressive future, so I embrace any environment which leads to guys like this getting elected:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/montana-republican-noah-was-600-years-old-when-he-build-the-ark-so-why-do-americans-need-retirement/
So as we march forth toward our glorious progressive future, remember that this is an asshole that starts out, at minimum, with 47% of the vote.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Keith: I’ve been trying (not very hard, just a fleeting thought when I see his scat in the thread) to figure out if this is an actual Tinker Bell of Purity, or just another troll. And if it was familiar under another nym
Kay
@Bill:
I just think they should stop saying it offers some benefit to US workers. Maybe it’s inevitable and I know there will be a trade deal because these supporters would obviously do just about anything to get one but they ALWAYS over-promise.
Here’s the results of the last one that was supposed to benefit US manufacturing:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/13183128/1/how-obamas-asian-trade-deal-sells-out-american-workers.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed
Just stop with this argument, free traders. Offer them something real in return that they can rely on, apart from or in addition to the trade deal. People have different priorties. Since “economic security” is right now important to the US middle class, give them something on that. Be responsive. Make it a real negotiation.
Cacti
O/T but in the latest moment of GOP outreach to women…
Senator Mark Kirk gets caught on a hot mic calling Senator Lindsey Graham a “bro with no ho”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
and the bill fails in the House….
NobodySpecial
@Jimgod: They profit from it. QED.
Jimgod
@Botsplainer: So never, ever improve anything right? Just always accept shit cuz the other side is worse. That’s unsustainable as a strategy and as a method of governing. Rep. Buttfumes being challenged for the Democratic ballot line from the left is not gonna automatically result in candidate Bible-banger here being elected Governor of Montana. The one does not follow from the other.
MattR
@different-church-lady: I will agree that Zandar’s assholishness is not deliberate.
Tree With Water
WTF good did NAFTA do the American worker? Any at all? Bill Clinton vowed the nation’s best interests were at stake in that vote, especially the interests of the democratic rank and file*- precisely as President Obama is now doing with his pig in a poke.
Hillary’s silence is tantamount to her shouting an endorsement of Obama’s trade bill. Now it’s Obama’s to stab with the same knife that Bill wielded on behalf of NAFTA, with evasions and pie-in-the-sky fairy tales about their best interests. Some things never change.
*(by the way, between NAFTA and the the Clinton’s full throated support of the Bush-Cheney War in Iraq, how much treasure have the Clinton’s already cost the country?).
different-church-lady
@MattR: Or at least not premeditated, at any rate…
catclub
Fucking media framing. NYT article.
Democrats rejected it. NOT that the GOP House could not pass it.
But when the GOP filibusters, it is “Senate fails to pass” and then they say the losing vote was 58-42, not mentioning that was a majority in favor.
ruemara
@lol: God, you’ll never get anyone to believe that.
Bill
@burnspbesq:
You have more faith in the modern Democratic Party than I do.
cahuenga
I would like to hear more on how Liz Warren has accomplished absolutely nothing….
scav
@Cacti: Have the traditional-family-centered wing of the party cared to comment on his two-letter characterization of the properly gendered rib-based members of the biblically sanctioned compact of marriage yet?
Cervantes
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
The logic of this argument escapes me.
Given the premise you’re accepting, why grant fast-track authority at all? Why not kill the thing at the first opportunity?
Ruckus
@Kay:
This is correct. That still won’t make it happen. The people who actually benefit from and make trade deals happen are the same people who want to pay less to their employees. And they want to do this worldwide. At best it would be a minor something thrown to the masses. We live in a world run by corporations and the wealthy. It used to just be the wealthy, but as more and more people worldwide have purchasing power, corporations are now the major process to funnel the money to the wealthy. They use labor as a process, not as beings, nor even as end users/purchasers.
I agree that this needs to be balanced out, but I imagine that the wealthy for the most part don’t.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@catclub: Democrats rejected it. NOT that the GOP House could not pass it.
What I’m seeing isn’t “Dems kill TPP” but “Dems spurn Obama!”
Bobby Thomson
@catclub: that’s all right. I think the Democrats come out ahead getting the credit for killing this, so I’ll take it.
srv
@Keith: We need to give the executive more power to automagically create the environment we live in, because the republic’s form of gov’t has proven to be such a failure.
We should just do all of gov’t this way – fast track panels for fixing social security, medicare, healthcare (like Hillary tried), defense, etc.
You people need to embrace the Unitary Executive.
Kay
@Tree With Water:
I don’t think Clinton is worried about distancing herself on trade so much as she’s worried about losing ground in a region of the country (which is different than losing a midterm or some House seats).
Democrats can’t write off the Great Lakes swathe of states. That can’t become the south for them. They need to stop the bleeding there because it isn’t going to end with just losing governors and statehouses. They can’t rely on the state/federal split in those states to hold.
catclub
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The WAPO coverage was even worse in framing it to blame Democrats.
Bobby Thomson
@Cervantes: the argument would be that you think this deal sucks but think Obama and the next president should have free rein to negotiate other deals. Why those deals are presumptively less shitty is left as an exercise for the reader.
jl
Orders must have come down form the corporate hacks who run our corporate hack media to always only refer to TPP as a ‘free trade’ agreement and anyone who opposes it for any reason to be called against ‘free trade’.
Dean Baker at his Beat the Press blog yesterday had more leaked drafts from Wikileaks. The leaked draft gives pharmaceutical patent holders more rights to appeal and challenge decisions of governments and health providers who decide not to reimburse for their high price patent drugs, even if the high price patent drug has no demonstrated clinical benefit over cheaper alternatives. That is the kind of thing you would find in a ‘free trade’ agreement? That is very questionable in my opinion.
Back when we had true global trade negotiations, with a widely representative selection of stakeholders from nearly all countries participating in negotiations, the policy of keeping negotiations secret, and holding up or down votes with no amendments had some rationale. These are partial deals between a small selection of countries, and corporate interests dominate the negotiations.
So NO on fast track. And the TPP needs extensive public examination and debate before a vote, with possibility of amendments. Nothing of consequence, except more corporate profits, will be lost to additional delay.
I trust Obama in general, but he is human and he can be wrong and make mistakes, and he has given far to much trust to discredited neoliberal Washington Consensus economic thought several times in the past.. So I don’t believe his personal assurance is sufficient, unsupported by anything else, that problems in previous trade bills have been all fixed up.
catclub
@Bobby Thomson: Just don’t complain when the GOP is never blamed for anything they do.
I agree that this case might be different, but I would rather they consistently (and accurately) give blame or credit.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@catclub: along those lines, this is all about a personal feed between Obama and the Democrats, by the time the evening shows start (Tweety), it’ll be about Obama and Pelosi. Little to no mention of the Speaker of the House and his sizable majority, I’ll bet.
Belafon
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Because the vote didn’t kill the TPP.
Tree With Water
@Kay: The democratic party (including Hillary, of course) stands to lose the Great Lake states if this trade bill is defeated? Is that what you’re saying? If so, I don’t see it.
And Hillary is interested in one thing: being elected to the presidency. That’s why she threw-in with Bush-Cheney and their war. She took counsel of her presidential ambition, and placed it before country. Either that, or she was bamboozled, and genuinely believes today that she was “misled by honest people misled by faulty intelligence”. Which do you think it was?
Elizabelle
Oh, for fuck’s sake: breathless NYTimes news alert, and look at the framing on this one.
Did Mara Liasson write it?
It’s not fast track negotiating procedure — it’s personal. Dems dropped bad on Bams. You can’t tell if the GOP even showed up for the vote.
And the Democrats did that, all by their little lonesome.
Did they?
Knowbody
@different-church-lady: he’s just not that bright to begin with.
@MattR: except for the fact that I’ve been calling out Zandar’s straw man, ad hominem, and poorly sourced arguments since the beginning and several other commenters here have backed me up on that…including other front pagers.
They can see it too.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Belafon: Good point- this is much more complicated than that
Kay
@Ruckus:
I also don’t know why they went with “labor leaders just want all the good jobs here!”. Some labor unions and “the labor movement” are international. They’re allies.
That led to this: Vietnamese labor leaders oppose Obama on trade:
“a group of Vietnamese labor leaders sent a letter to Congress on Thursday saying a major pending trade bill will destroy efforts to improve workers’ rights in their country.
“The U.S. Congress should not cast away its leverage to push for such reforms by passing fast track,” the letter reads. “Promises of future reforms by the Vietnamese government should not be trusted. If fast track were passed before the above abuses are actually stopped, the hope of any real reprieve for Vietnam’s oppressed workers would fade.”
President Barack Obama has long insisted his Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact with 11 other nations will improve labor standards in countries with terrible human rights records, including Vietnam. But the letter signed by Lê Thanh Tùng of the Committee of Support of Independent Labor Unions, Trương Minh Đức from Viet Labor and Phạm Văn Trội of the Brotherhood for Democracy argues the opposite is true.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/vietnam-tpp_n_7562390.html
While it is ceratinly true that labor has lost clout in the US, Democrats can’t really make a labor union argument without labor unions and by pitting worker v worker.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Belafon: Yup. C-Span says TPA (fast track) passed 219-211.
Cheers,
Scott.
raven
@Knowbody: And, right or wrong, you are an annoying fucking asshole.
Belafon
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: I guess my point was to be that TPA and TPP are not the same thing. TPA passes: There’s still a vote on TPP. TPA fails: There amending and voting on the TPP.
Cacti
@Kay:
Isn’t that the sort of move we excoriate AIPAC for on a regular basis?
Linnaeus
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
But that doesn’t include TAA and the Senate bill approving TPA does. They’ll need to reconcile the two.
Fair Economist
@Elizabelle: So the NYT says the Dems killed Fast Track – and it passes anyway.
They can’t even be a stenographer correctly anymore.
Fair Economist
Robbing Medicare – of all things! – to cover worker assistance was TERRIBLE politics and I’m glad it failed.
The Raven on the Hill
Quite a lot could go wrong, I’m sure. On the other hand, quite a lot could go wrong if this passes.
And since when have secret treaties been the American way?
In any event, Fast Track didn’t pass. The screaming-wingnut progressive Democrat coalition has delivered a modest bit of democracy.
I hope we will finally see the whole thing, so it can be debated on its merits.
askew
Thank God for Pelosi temporarily stopping fast track. Thank God for Sanders, O’Malley, Warren and others for being vocal against TPA/TPP. Shame on coward Hillary for saying nothing. Let’s see if progressive groups and unions are going to reward her cowardice or not.
The Raven on the Hill
@Mike J: One can but hope. Patricia Murray (no, one of the most powerful people in the world is not “Patty” to me) is the woman who made the deal that cut off my unemployment insurance for Christmas.
Kay
@Cacti:
Well, no, because it’s an international trade deal. Also, Obama was using Vietnamese labor protections as a selling point. They countered with the obvious flip side of his “leverage” argument with “you’ll have MORE leverage if you get the protections first”.
The liberal free trade argument as I’m sure you’re aware has labor as stakeholders. They aren’t incidental to passage because it’s bigger than prescription drug benefits for auto workers, or whatever. They imprison labor leaders in Vietnam. They murder them other places. Pitting US labor against the international labor movement understandably makes US labor leaders furious. They’re part of the same movement, sometimes part of the same organizations, literally.
mattH
On lunch so I really can’t comment much, but Erik Loomis at LG&M had a post about effective protections for US labor being indirectly tied to giving overseas labor the ability to sue US companies in US courts. Raises their wages and helps halt the race to the bottom on the US as well. And the only way we are going to see that here is if we can offer amendments to TPP. If it’s fast-tracked it’ll be passed with NO input by anyone but corporate interests, and we know they certainly don’t want anyone outside the US being able to sue them
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Linnaeus: Reconciliation is standard procedure, in normal Congresses anyway. ;-) TPA still isn’t out of the woods, but it isn’t dead yet either.
A colleague was thrilled when TAA failed, thinking that killed everything. I think she’s going to be very disappointed – at least until all the machinations play out.
Cheers,
Scott.
Fair Economist
@The Raven on the Hill:
It didn’t *pass*, but it did *advance*. Both the Senate and House have passed versions. Now they need to be reconciled. That’s not guaranteed, but it’s not impossible either.
Edit: something of a win, I do agree.
Bobby Thomson
@catclub: what I’m saying is, this is an instance when being tagged with credit/blame is good, regardless of whether it’s accurate. Why grouse?
Bobby Thomson
@Tree With Water: pretty sure Kay is saying the exact opposite. Voting for TPP kills Dems in the rust belt.
Kay
@mattH:
That was a really good idea. I think it is actually HIS idea, too. It’s the liberal response to special process for business interests. “Okay, but then labor gets them too!”
Seems reasonable to me.
He’s making life very, very difficult for liberal free traders and it’s about time. Free trade to me is one of those things that are “bipartisan” and almost universally supported in “elite” circles (media etc.) so proponents just do a lot of broad rhetorical strokes and we never get to what they could OFFER.
Belafon
@The Raven on the Hill:
Most of them are negotiated in secret – see the negotiations with Iran, and that’s not even a treaty – and then released to the public. The president negotiates, and then the Senate approves or rejects.
Kay
@Bobby Thomson:
I think Democrats have to start thinking about why they’re bleeding there before it spreads to Senate and Presidential races. They can’t write off any more regions and that is starting to look regional to me. Clinton probably wants as many maps as she can get, as many ways to 270 as she can keep open.
Those states are a known quanitity for Democrats. They have to hold the white middle and working class voters they have and turn out higher-income white liberals, AA and college students. They don’t have a whole lot of room for error. If it shifts even a couple of points they lose. They have to limit damage in the vast majority of counties and turn out three or four or five counties.
Bobby Thomson
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: nope. It’s a conditional vote, effective only if TAA passes on a mulligan next week.
Cacti
@Kay:
As opposed to our policy concerning Israel and Palestine, which is purely a domestic concern?
Bobby Thomson
@Kay: I think the short answer is “Democrats moved,” which doesn’t help.
catclub
Note that there were 126 votes in favor of TAA. I believe there are 251 GOP House members. Suddenly the Hastert Rule does not even come up for consideration – 1)Business wanted it and 2)the far right crazies would not respond the same way as they would to an immigration law.
jl
@Kay: TPP is not mainly a ‘free trade’ bill. The average tariff on goods and services is about the same as sales tax in the US. The TPP is mostly about imposing the current (and historically very extremist and corporate friendly) US IP patent and copyright regime on other countries, and inching the cause of blanket corporate investment insurance a little further along.
Call it a ‘corporate’sponsored trade (NOT free trade) bill’ instead.
Kay
@Bobby Thomson:
It’s complicated, because while there may be a “new Democratic majority” rust belt states aren’t changing that fast. They’re older. Ohio doesn’t have a strong Latino vote. Now they could just put Ohio in the Indiana column as “Republican” but that takes out one whole route and if it spreads, if they start fighting for Michigan or Wisconsin then they had better find some more western states or make the whole thing moot and take Texas :)
Kay
@catclub:
Republicans are scared of it too. They’re much more reliant on white working class and they need more, not less. That was their ace in the hole-they’ve convinced themselves Romney wasn’t the right candidate for their populist appeal.
catclub
@Kay: I looked up the Roll call. Only 88 GOP votes in favor, and still 40 Democratic votes in favor. There were more GOP votes against (144) than Democratic votes against. But the news says the Democrats rebuffed Obama.
Hastert rule would say this never comes close to a vote. I guess after it went down, some GOP votes changed to oppose.
Kay
@Cacti:
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Obama said the trade deal with Vietnam would benefit Vietnamese workers in their effort to organize and oppose their state labor policy. Some Vietnamese labor leaders said that was not true. They’re not the state of Vietnam. I don’t know what it has to do with Israel state actors petitioning Congress. He cited them as a reason he needs fast track, in what I think was an effort to isolate US labor leaders. When they respond he can hardly claim they’re meddling in his trade deal.
I don’t have any problem with Obama pulling out all the stops for his trade deal. I do have a problem with this insistence that everyone else play nice. He’ll get his trade deal but boy there is going to be a lot of blood on the floor and that’s a shame because Democrats aren’t really in a position to start shedding allies and as soon as this thing passes Republicans will get right back to business. Maybe at some point someone will write a book and we’ll find out why the White House went to war with their own side but the only thing I can think of is it was to gain support in the GOP House, because they knew that’s where the vast majority of votes were coming from.
Alex S.
Good. This whole package should go up in flames.
It’s only a “Free Trade” package because the free trade component of this bill might be the most popular one.
brantl
@MDC: THIS, EXACTLY THIS. How are we likely to get better Democratic representation without showing a preference for it. THAT’S WHAT PRIMARIES ARE FOR..
Kay
@catclub:
I knew Boehner was lying. I also knew he’d blame Obama. It’s funny because the vote count has been wrong all along. The original claim was they needed very few Democrats. Now they need 100?
Pelosi didn’t make any strong stand. She can count and she cut her losses. Wisely, I might add.
Cervantes
@Cacti:
No, it isn’t the same “sort of move.”
Comparing (1) a letter sent by Vietnamese labor leaders to (2) the kind of influence that AIPAC wields is bizarre.
Is it your impression that sending letters is what AIPAC does for a living?
And even if it were, you’d still have to deal with the merits of the arguments made by the two entities.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Knowbody:
Neither is racism. Please disappear up your own asshole.
Alex S.
@Elizabelle:
It might actually be an advantage if the democrats are blamed for a failure of TPP, considering how unpopular that package is. I mean, Obama will be gone soon. The consequences of that bill might hurt for decades.
Kay
@catclub:
The man just lies costantly:
That’s the best reason for Obama to “dance with the gal who brung him” and rely on Democratic votes.
Nancy Pelosi is never off by 92 :)
brantl
@? Martin:Not changing something hardly ever makes a situation better than it had been before that moment, as you have the status quo in both instances. The real questions involve is changing it going to make it better or is it going to make it worse?
Kay
@Cervantes:
It may not matter. I’m sure they’re either in prison or headed there. It’s amazingly brave for a Vietnamese labor leader to send a letter. Solidarity with international labor probably means a lot to them. It’s all they have without state protections or support.
Heliopause
Nothing. Few if any of those Dems will actually be “primaried”, and even if a couple are what difference does it make if the inevitable and enormous GOP advantage is one or two seats bigger?
On the other hand, is there any line the party leaders cannot cross as far as you’re concerned?
burnspbesq
@brantl:
You can have all the primaries you want. But when the primaries are over, YOU FUCKING CLOSE RANKS AND SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, WHOEVER IT IS. It’s a two-party system, and the other party wants to fuck you in the ass.
Jimgod
@burnspbesq: Nobody here is arguing otherwise. What I take exception to is the pearl-clutching over primary challenges in the first place, how we just dassn’t challenge any incumbent anywhere or the Republicans automatically win. One does not follow from the other.
Cervantes
@Kay:
Yes, they are — just like the folks at AIPAC!
blueskies
@Chris: Man, I wish I could think this clearly on a Friday afternoon:
Abs-o-fucking-lutely.
If this bill is SO damned important, explain it to me. I am not stupid and I’ve been following what the President and others have been selling about it. NOTHING — n-o-t-h-i-n-g said was compelling at all. “Trust me” is the best I heard.
Trust me?
Trust me?
Fuck you.
Any time ANY pol says “trust me,” the only appropriate response from a voter is “Fuck You.”
Barry
@Zandar: “@MDC: Well this certainly isn’t going to help keep the Obama coalition together to elect Dems in 2016. ”
Bull f-ing sh*t. Or perhaps you actually have something which links opposing one of the worst, most non-Democratic bills for the past several years to the defeat of the Democratic Party?
brendancalling
Looks like the progressives won. Does that mean they hate Obama or something?
Kerry Reid
@The Raven on the Hill:
America was formed out of secret negotiations. Surely this isn’t news to you?
Chris
@brantl:
See, this is what gets me about establishment Democrats’ relationship with the “professional left.” Again and again you hear that the activists just don’t understand the political climate; that there’s no way that bills as left wing as they want would ever pass in a post-Reagan America; that they need to stop expecting the moon from Democratic politicians and actually get off their asses and start doing some work themselves; etc…
All of which, perfectly good points.
But then any time the “professional left” actually does anything like that and works to shift the OW to the left for a change, establishment Democrats react not with relief, but with shock and horror. And start to furiously berate the DFHs about how what they’re asking for is just too radical and crazy; they’re going to ruin everything; they’re making the Democrats look weak; they all need to close ranks and obediently do Whatever The Head Democrat Wants because it’s Us Or The Republicans.
One could be forgiven for wondering if there’s anything at all the DFHs could do that might prompt the establishment to treat them as anything other than a convenient punching bag.
@burnspbesq:
Yeah, because we totally won’t be hearing exactly this kind of “you must close ranks behind the reasonable moderate centrists or the Republicans win!” stuff in the primaries, will we? Jesus, the talk about leaving this kind of stuff for the primaries is exactly what’s being reacted to as beyond the pale right here.
(Before the elections, it’s “wait until after the elections, we have to win first!” After the elections, it’s “wait until the elections, that’s when it’s appropriate to do this!”)
cahuenga
@Chris:
Well put Chris. Time and again I’ll run into establishment Dems who hate DFHs far more than the most depraved Republicans. I will never get that.
mclaren
@Keith:
Heavens no! Democrats need to get aggressive in their response to the TPP — Democrats must threaten to lick the soles of Obama’s shoe very roughly if the TPP gets passed. And they must carry through with their threat.
It’s a tough job, but according to our cringing Republican-lite toadies like Zandar who think the corporate coup misnamed “the TPP” is just nifty-keen ‘n peachy, someone’s got to do it.
mclaren
@Chris:
Arguing with burnspbesq is like reading Aeschylus to a cage of hyenas. It insults your intelligence, and merely enrages the hyena.
Barry
@burnspbesq: “You can have all the primaries you want. But when the primaries are over, YOU FUCKING CLOSE RANKS AND SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, WHOEVER IT IS. It’s a two-party system, and the other party wants to fuck you in the ass. ”
WE F*CKING DID. THAT’S WHY OBAMA IS PRESIDENT.