Obama Fires Back At Warren, Liberals Over 'Dishonest' Attacks On Trade Deal
Source: TPM
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama made a surprise appearance in a media conference call with Labor Secretary Tom Perez on Friday to push back on what he called "dishonest" criticism from progressives apparently including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a "secret" deal.
"What I am averse to is a bunch of ad hominem attacks and misinformation that stirs up the base but ultimately doesn't serve them well. And I'm going to be pushing back very hard if I keep hearing that stuff," Obama told a small group of reporters on the call.
Of all the criticisms, "The one that gets on my nerves the most is the notion that this is a secret deal," he said. "Every single one of the critics saying this is a secret deal, or send out e-mails to their fundraising base that they're working to stop a secret deal, could walk over and see the text of the agreement."
-snip-
Obama didn't mention Warren by name, but he didn't have to. Two days ago Warren sent her supporters a fundraising email to whip up opposition to fast-tracking a trade deal. "The government doesn't want you to read this massive new trade agreement," Warren wrote. "Its top secret." The president noted that the text of the TPP has been available "for weeks." He said some components are still being negotiated and that Congress will have months to review it and decide whether or not to approve the deal.
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-progressives-trade-tpp
arcane1
(38,613 posts)"If and when TPA (Trade Promotion Authority) passes, I still have to present the final detailed text of TPP to Congress, and a minimum of three months will be provided to Congress for them to scrutinize every comma and period and number in the text," he said. "So there's nothing secret about it, and when I just keep on hearing people repeating this notion that it's secret, I gotta say, it's dishonest. And it's a little concerning when I see friends of mine resorting to those tactics."
Apart from Warren, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and a variety of progressive activist groups have been mobilizing their base against a trade deal. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said "hell no" to letting Obama fast-track a trade agreement. Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is noncommittal. Republican leaders, meanwhile, are broadly on board and moving the fast-track authority, as are numerous Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden (OR), the ranking member of the Finance Committee.
Obama also dismissed as "bunk" and "not true" separate claims that investor-state dispute settlement (or ISDS) procedures could end up weakening domestic financial regulations or consumer protections or food safety laws. "They have no ability to undo U.S. laws," he said.
He urged critics to understand that the deal would be far more progressive than NAFTA because it includes enforceable labor, environmental and human rights protections. He promised that it would be "the most progressive trade agreement in our history" and a big improvement on the status quo.
The battle appears to be the most contentious that Obama has had with his base, and it has clearly irked him. On Thursday he compared some of the left's attacks on trade to the "death panels" smear during the Obamacare debate while speaking to supporters in Washington, D.C., according to a White House transcript of the appearance.
"I'm pretty fired up about this," he told reporters on the Friday call.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)>>He promised that it would be "the most progressive trade agreement in our history" and a big improvement on the status quo.
AND ...
>>
"I'm pretty fired up about this," he told reporters on the Friday call.
****
I'll bet -- Fired Up and Ready to Go!!!
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)when he says the ISDS will not weaken the economy. Check on how many lawsuits have been brought or are pending because of the same shit in NAFTA.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)"The potential for lawsuits under this process is far-reaching since it could be used by more than 350 million individuals and corporations throughout the NAFTA countries."
Appleton & Associates (attorneys
for Ethyl), October 1996
OUTCOME
In July 1998, the government of Canada settled with Ethyl. Canada reversed its ban on MMT, paid $13 million in legal fees and damages, and issued a statement that it lacked evidence of MMTs toxicity (for Ethyls use in advertising).
CORPORATION
Ethyl the corporation that put the lead in leaded gasoline is a Virginia-based chemical company. It produces a toxic gasoline additive called methylcyclopentadienyl man-
ganese tricarbonyl (MMT) in Virginia, then ships the substance to Canada, where it is mixed in a plant in Ontario and sold to Canadian gasoline refiners. To complete the circle of poison, each year Ethyl ships 4 million kgs of toxic waste back into the US, burying it in Ohio, making the company the largest cross-border pollution trader in North America.
PUBLIC INTEREST
In 1997 Canada imposed a ban on the import and inter-provincial transport of
MMT. The ban was intended to protect public health, as MMT contains manganese a known human neurotoxin. MMT is banned by the State of California and EPA has banned its use
in reformulated gasoline.
LEGAL ATTACK
While the ban was being debated in the Canadian Parliament, Ethyl filed a notice
that it would sue Canada for cash damages under NAFTA if restrictions were placed
on MMT. The Parliament withstood these threats and passed the ban. Five days later,
Ethyl filed a claim for $250 million before a NAFTA tribunal. Ethyl argued that the law
was an expropriation of its assets; that it was unfairly treated because it was a foreign company (there are no Canadian manufacturers of MMT); and that the ban
was an illegal performance requirement because it would force the company to
build a factory in every Canadian Province
Pay the polluter: Ethyls claim that restrictions on MMT expropriated the companys
property is a dangerous expansion of rules on regulatory takings.
When a government regulates a dangerous chemical, it shouldnt have to pay the corporation that manufactures the toxic substance.
Intimidation: By threatening to sue before the law was passed, Ethyl hung the threat
of monetary damages over the heads of lawmakers. While the Canadian parliament did not
give in to the pressure, this tactic could have a chilling effect in the future.
Successful Suit!
Ethyls NAFTA lawsuit succeeded in reversing the controls on MMT. This success will no
doubt encourage other corporations to use NAFTAs investment rules to challenge
government policies.
Big_Mike
(509 posts)I might have laughed at that Jughead clone H. Ross Perot back in '92, but her sure got one part right: Ya hear that sound? That's the sound of jobs, going to Mexico!
Break down barriers to trade, my ass! Look at the trucks coming up from Mexico and note how many fail inspections as well as how few drivers actually meet the training requirements set out in the agreements.
Cha
(295,899 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Yes, the representatives can go in and see the bill, but the can't take any notes or have any aides with them. The most important restriction is that it has been classified as SECRET. Therefore, even if they can see it they can not reveal anything that is in it under the threat of being arrested.
Fast Tracts is total bullshit, because the congress can not make any amendments to the bill and after we have all read how damn rotten it is they will have to vote to either pass it or kill it. Guess who controls congress: Republicans and they along with some right-wing asshole Democrats will pass it and it will be law. This is their game plan, slam dunk and go screw yourself and bend over because your are going to get the shaft. When Obama saw that Democrats had lost the Senate and the House it was his grand opportunity to ram this through congress as he heads out the door to dozen multi-million dollar do nothing board memberships.
I can't believe that I changed my party status from Independent to Democratic in order to vote for Obama in the primary. Although I agree that he has brought about some progressive legislation I am very disappointed and I am going to re-register as an Independent. He just hasn't been forceful enough on a number of issues and too damn wishy-washy in dealing with the Republicans. He is attacking the progressive wing of his party that put him in office far most stringently than he has ever dared to treat the Republicans. He let those damn killers, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield go scot free. He could have at least pushed for an congressional investigation into how they were able to take up to war on lies. Then he sits back and doesn't say crap when the Republicans gained control of the House and the launch one phoney investigation after another. Why hasn't he gone to the American people and condemned them as FDR or Harry Truman never hesitated to do.
I will vote for a Democrat, who will most probably be Clinton. But I will be very hesitant to contribute anything for her campaign until I she comes out attacking this bogus trade agreement, pledges to back the unions and really work for fair trade agreements including the either major changes to existing trade agreements or their cancellation.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)in her interview with Rachel Maddow the other night -- I'd call that secretive as hell.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)You notice that he DOESN'T!?? Publish it. Let us decide. Because the leaked bits I have read are pretty damning. Corps rights trump countries laws.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)viewed as misleading. No thanks, when the final bill is agreed upon, I want to see it and read it. Until then, I don't want to read what MIGHT happen or what the law MIGHT contain. That is dishonest and could be used in a very negative way against the American people.
It isn't secret when the legislators can walk over and read it. If Warren is lying about that, she has lost a lot of credibility. She is supposed to be the truth-teller.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)want it published before it is finalized are special interest groups who have no more interest in the American taxpayer than Wall Street.
I'll wait until I can learn the TRUTH. I'm not listening to the dog whistle being put out by special interest groups.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)part is allowed to be published.
But you keep on refusing to do anything until five years after it is too late.
I am going to fight it NOW.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)from release to vote. Whether it is released now or later doesn't matter. The clock starts when it is released. By delaying it until it is finalized, it gives the voters and congresspeople the most time to debate the FACTS and ACUTAL BILL
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)From the article:
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)You may be correct, I don't know, but, we'll all know when the final negotiated documented is made public. Won't we?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)I've been involved with State government on both sides of an issue that was presented to the public with a 90 day timeline for approval. I've seen policies overturned completely in those 90 days, I've seen them amended and I've seen them sail into law with public approval. Time will tell on this one.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)be possible. Yes we will know we are screwed at that point, but nothing can be done about it, which is precisely why they are insisting on this order of events.
Cha
(295,899 posts)it means something.
Mahalo Don
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)amend it, but that is to be expected. There will never be a global trade bill if every country wants to amend it. So the US amends it, and then we wait for the other 12 countries to respond, possibly with amendments, then we re-review and debate the bill, and possibly add more amendments, then we send it to the other 12 countries who amend it.....ad infinitum.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)It does not deserve to become law.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)you being so dishonest about that? You advocate releasing a bill that isn't finalized? What is your opposition to releasing the bill once it is finalized? I find your dishonesty very telling.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)The trade agreement cannot be modified and the congress can only vote it up or down. Guess who controls congress? Guess who support it? When they ship the last good paying manufacturing job out to Vietnam where their minimum wage is something like .50 cent an hour get back to us.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I love all the "I wait for facts!" comments on stuff like the TPP that are *never* turned against the people that blindly support it. I wonder why that is.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)at it's worst.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Ryan said "I feel like I am having an out of body experience" -
Ryan also used a procedural maneuver to stop Levin from making a change in committee...
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)He never really said anything about a public option or single payer. Not really.
Now, he tells us that "Every single one of the critics saying this is a secret deal, or send out e-mails to their fundraising base that they're working to stop a secret deal, could walk over and see the text of the agreement." It isn't secret. Honest.
And those that have taken a look cannot take notes, cannot tell us specifically what it says, cannot let their staff see it by themselves. And with those restrictions still say "if you only knew what was in it you would be shocked" or something to that effect.
This is VERY disingenuous by our President.
I guess we are having an impact and he (or his handlers) are worried.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)that he supports the idea of single payer but it won't work with the system we have. It was the right that pushed the single payer meme. They continually reported that ACA would lead to single payer. BTW, the ACA has provisions that allow each state to become single payer. Guess what? The one state that tried to make that happen couldn't based on cost. So if you don't have single payer, don't blame Obama. If anything, blame your state reps.
The idea that the TPP should be released for public consumption before even being finalized is ridiculous. Obama just handed Warren her lying ass on this and it will be a while before she lives it down. I realize it was a fund raising letter, but she has lost all credibility as the truth-teller in the Senate. That is what is really sad.
candelista
(1,986 posts)That would be more democratic.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)to everyone. It won't be the most democratic process. it has taken 8 years to get this far. The public comment period will come in the 90 day interval between release and vote. Then the voters will be able to tell their congresspeople to vote yes or no. That is democracy.
90 days is 90 days. If they release the bill tomorrow there will be a 90 day commentary period. If they release it in a month, there will still be a 90 day commentary period. The only reason for waiting is accuracy. That is democracy in my book.
Beauregard
(376 posts)This bill is being fast-tracked, so the Congress will only be able to vote up or down on it. Whatever criticisms the public might have will have no chance to be incorporated in the bill. That's undemocratic.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)or against and you communicate that with your elected representative, then your representative will vote accordingly.
The idea of proposing legislation and voting up or down on it is democracy at it's finest. I would argue that the process of amending legislation (which frequently has nothing to do with the bill) and holding legislation hostage to get an unfavorable amendment passed is highly undemocratic.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)after fast track is approved.
Let them release the full text for 90 days, then have a vote on fast track. They won't do it for the same reason they were in a rush to pass the Patriot Act before most people could study it carefully and understand the ramifications.
They have had many years to carefully weave weasel language into the document which may not be unwoven forensically until it becomes the focus of an ISDS challenge. Every trade representative weasel has had numerous years to carefully craft their language, in advance of any challenge, to support the future arguments which they plan on making when they extract penalties from the pockets of the U.S. taxpayers.
That is every unethical dirtbag lawyer's wet dream. To have years to write a contract, with ample time to study all of the angles, but which the other party has only a brief time to read hurriedly before they sign it.
These are sleazebag con man tactics at their finest.
salib
(2,116 posts)You guys are sounding desperate.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Beauregard
(376 posts)Response to Beauregard (Reply #45)
olegramps This message was self-deleted by its author.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Beauregard
(376 posts)Your comment about being uniformed was entirely uninformative.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)I can only suppose from the tone of your response that perhaps that you are just being argumentative. Have a nine day. I will endeavor not to read any of your posts.
Cha
(295,899 posts)diabeticman
(3,121 posts)Me thinks thou does protest too much? Please Mr. President if we are wrong we (as my wife said) will gladly eat our words "on a nice pizza" but prove to us we are wrong by releasing the deal.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Instead he sided with the people who despise him (if they really do - it might just be theater).
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)He should hate me, I am white and if I was him I would.
But that is a different matter, isnt it.
candelista
(1,986 posts)It attacks the moral character of Warren and the other critics. It's not like President Obama to say something like this. He's usually very polite. He must really be pissed off this time.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)In a thread by WillyT
The points are dead-on, but we've known for a bit where she stands.
But she goes on to rail about Obama deliberately concealing things from the public purely because he knows they would not like them if they found out.
Before that moment, it was just a little spat on policy between them. But Liz just put ten bucks in the nickel-dime poker pot when she called Obama out & used that "deliberate" word where, when and as she did.
Shush a bit, everyone.
There will momentarily be the sound of another shoe dropping.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6551698
candelista
(1,986 posts)Even the high and mighty have their little hissy-fits.
mahannah
(893 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Let them spare with each other (metaphorically speaking). That would be interesting.
If Warren really thinks Obama is wrong, then she should challenge him to a sit down debate on the issue.
Honestly I'm not happy about what is being said by either of them (and I say this because I support both of them). Who should I believe?
EEO
(1,620 posts)Such bullshit.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Is it some kind of national security secret or just a goddamn trade deal?
Optical.Catalyst
(1,355 posts)Mr. President, I would love to walk over and see the text of the agreement. Where do I go to see it?
Better yet, just post a copy on the White House website so everybody can " See the text of the agreement."
mike_c
(36,213 posts)Stop the secrecy, show us the working version, and let's have a public debate. If Obama is correct, and the TPP is good for U.S. workers, then he should be much more easily able to make that case through transparency, rather than secrecy.