HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Progressives just changed...

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:37 PM

Progressives just changed the 2016 election narrative by blocking TPP fast-track

Links found in original here --> http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/05/13/progressives-just-changed-the-2016-election-narrative-by-blocking-tpp-fast-track/




In a last-minute huddle, Democrats blocked fast-track authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the Senate, saying they had concerns about enforcement of protections. This was a big, multifaceted win for progressives. One, Elizabeth Warren’s Klout score just went way up. Two, the TPP now has a good shot of being killed in the House with the momentum that’s been built. And three, the emerging progressive populist agenda has folks wondering if this changes the dynamic for 2016. Will Hillary Clinton respond by siding with Warren, or will she re-launch her Blue Dog brand?

It’s a shame that all this comes as the result of President Obama’s increasingly ugly public spat with the progressive wing of the Democratic party where he’s focused his attention on marginalizing Senator Warren. Yesterday’s vote shows that Warren isn’t the one out in the weeds — it’s the President. The bright side is the party is united like it hasn’t been in quite some time. This is a true values debate, and progressives are leading the charge to advance an emergent populist agenda that aims to patch the holes in our economic system which have led to the greatest wealth inequality since the Gilded Age and robber barons.

The more the President attacks Senator Warren, the more power she accrues. This just feeds the momentum for a new progressive agenda such as Bill de Blasio’s “Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality,” and Bernie Sanders’ “Economic Agenda to Combat Income Inequality.” It’s propelling the progressive brand on the national stage with leaders like Alan Grayson appearing as the reasoned advocate for working Americans. Here’s what Grayson says about TPP:

"Our so-called free trade policies, have been a disaster for the United States since NAFTA was enacted…And the result of that is that we’ve gone from $2 trillion in surplus with our trade to $11 trillion in debt. And we’ve lost five million manufacturing jobs and roughly 15 million other jobs in the last 20 years. So we’ve lost twice: We’ve lost the jobs, and we’ve also gone deeper and deeper into debt."


All this progressive ascendency seems to be making Hillary Clinton nervous. She hasn’t taken a question from a reporter in more than 20 days — approximately the life-span of the TPP dustup. She’s also been busy forming a new Super PAC called “Correct The Record,” to raise money specifically for political research, rapid response and communications in coordination with the campaign. Perhaps TPP is on their project list. More likely though, they’re hoping the deal will die quickly, so Hillary doesn’t have to weigh in either way.

Obama deciding to go personal with Warren seems uncharacteristically ham-handed. In his interview with Yahoo’s Matt Bai, the President took an unmistakeable condescending tone, instead of referring to “Senator Warren,” he comes off sounding paternalistic. He says “Ehhhh-liz-ah-beth,” as if she’s his little sister and can talk to the Presidential hand. It was so bad Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio called it “disrespectful,” and suggested the President wouldn’t refer to a male Senator in that belittling manner. That’s the way it sounded to me too.

Dana Milbank wrote about the personal Obama-drama, asserting that his vindictive manner could be what actually kills the TPP. Milbank observes, “The rhetoric suggests that Obama has given up trying to persuade his fellow Democrats to join him in supporting ‘fast track’ approval…and that he’s lashing out at them in anger.”

Maybe this is all eleventy-dimensional chess. Maybe Obama is allowing the deal to be damned with faint praise. Or, damned with tainted praise, courtesy of every Republican and corporate lobbyist in DC. This is the stuff that GOP dreams are made of. Well, this and the suffering of little children. It’s just impossible to believe Obama would betray his values like this. He’s a “community organizer” who promised to “put on his comfortable shoes” to march with unions on worker protections. Of course, he also downgraded that in his Yahoo interview to a less strenuous “stand with” unions. Sorry guys. These Nikes are comfortable, but they’re not that comfortable. That pinch you feel is the suffering of slave labor in Vietnam, and the loss jobs here at home.

If the party were really bringing their game, the TPP would be the perfect strawman to kickoff the 2016 campaign season. Hillary hasn’t released an economic plan yet, so all this timing is either too perfect, or perfectly disastrous for her campaign, depending on what her economic plan turns out to be. There’s signs she might come around to a progressive agenda. Clinton advisor Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate in economics, just released a scorching report on economic policy. One of the highlights of the report is that trade deals like the TPP are largely to blame for our explosion of wealth inequality. The report calls for “rewriting the rules of our market economy to reduce those inequalities.” One of the pull-quotes in the report reads: “Inequality has been a choice, and it is within our power to reverse it.” That’s the stuff great stump speeches are made of.

If Hillary crafted a progressive Stiglitz-Warren economic policy, and made it the centerpiece of her campaign, she’d easily win over progressives and unite the party. It would be a master stroke of triangulation — the sensible and pragmatic thing to do. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from a smart politician who recognizes that Elizabeth Warren has just been anointed the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

85 replies, 5437 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply Progressives just changed the 2016 election narrative by blocking TPP fast-track (Original post)
nashville_brook May 2015 OP
JaneyVee May 2015 #1
nashville_brook May 2015 #2
JaneyVee May 2015 #6
nashville_brook May 2015 #7
JaneyVee May 2015 #8
nashville_brook May 2015 #12
JaneyVee May 2015 #21
nashville_brook May 2015 #44
JaneyVee May 2015 #61
Enthusiast May 2015 #56
JaneyVee May 2015 #62
Chemisse May 2015 #67
sulphurdunn May 2015 #64
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #66
sulphurdunn May 2015 #69
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #71
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #75
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #74
libdem4life May 2015 #18
JaneyVee May 2015 #25
libdem4life May 2015 #27
JaneyVee May 2015 #37
libdem4life May 2015 #43
msongs May 2015 #35
JaneyVee May 2015 #36
libdem4life May 2015 #40
JaneyVee May 2015 #41
libdem4life May 2015 #45
nashville_brook May 2015 #50
nashville_brook May 2015 #42
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #9
nashville_brook May 2015 #17
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #20
nashville_brook May 2015 #23
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #31
nashville_brook May 2015 #46
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #65
nashville_brook May 2015 #53
naoya6161 May 2015 #57
sabrina 1 May 2015 #84
eridani May 2015 #85
Cali_Democrat May 2015 #16
nashville_brook May 2015 #19
Cali_Democrat May 2015 #24
JaneyVee May 2015 #26
libdem4life May 2015 #30
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #68
nashville_brook May 2015 #33
Cali_Democrat May 2015 #38
nashville_brook May 2015 #47
Cali_Democrat May 2015 #59
1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #70
Romeo.lima333 May 2015 #3
Go Vols May 2015 #52
Wellstone ruled May 2015 #4
nashville_brook May 2015 #5
Wellstone ruled May 2015 #13
nashville_brook May 2015 #22
Wellstone ruled May 2015 #63
Enthusiast May 2015 #58
leftofcool May 2015 #10
nashville_brook May 2015 #14
Hoyt May 2015 #29
leftofcool May 2015 #32
Hoyt May 2015 #34
nashville_brook May 2015 #39
leftofcool May 2015 #77
Mojorabbit May 2015 #82
Hoyt May 2015 #83
John Poet May 2015 #15
libdem4life May 2015 #11
nashville_brook May 2015 #49
libdem4life May 2015 #51
bigwillq May 2015 #28
nashville_brook May 2015 #48
BrotherIvan May 2015 #54
Enthusiast May 2015 #55
Ford_Prefect May 2015 #60
still_one May 2015 #76
zentrum May 2015 #72
MaggieD May 2015 #73
DirkGently May 2015 #79
MaggieD May 2015 #80
DirkGently May 2015 #81
DirkGently May 2015 #78

Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:40 PM

1. "President Obama’s increasingly ugly public spat with the progressive wing of the Democratic party"

 

PROGRESSIVES CALLED HIM A SEXIST.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #1)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:43 PM

2. that was indeed a crescendo in his escalation of the spat.

so disappointing he spoke to Warren like that -- it's beneath him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #2)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:57 PM

6. Like what? He said nothing sexist, has a wife 2 daughters, and...

 

So called progressives are going to scrape the bottom of the barrel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:59 PM

7. listen to the recording -- it's completely condescending. meant to be that way.

it's an unforced error on his part. he didn't need to get that emotionally involved.

the tone is just like in debate club when the guys know you're winning and they lose their composure. sometimes they reach for a belittling tone if they think it somehow strengthens their position (to sound "strong" when it does the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #7)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:01 PM

8. But "emotionally involved" isn't what's being lobbed at him...

 

Accusations of sexism are, which is beyond ridiculous. Progressives despise him and once again jumped the shark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:05 PM

12. he deployed a stereotypically belittling tone that, in this context

was meant to resonate with "the big strong" dudes in the Dem Party who don't want to be seen as "emotional" and "illogical." it's a sexist tactic -- to marginalize a woman based on lack of strength, emotionality and irrationality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #12)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:12 PM

21. Holy crap. PC police run amok.

 

Again, jumped. the. shark. Now it's not his words but his tone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #21)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:56 PM

44. look, I'm offended by it. I'm not offended on anyone's behalf.

there's nothing PC about it.

this is like saying to a person of color that they need to lighten up about the n-word. seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #44)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:56 PM

61. So now saying Elizabeth in a tone = the N word?

 

Yes, that is the PC speech run amok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #21)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:25 PM

56. I'm a man and I caught the condescending tone right off. You think we make this shit up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #56)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:59 PM

62. Condescending tone doesn't = sexism.

 

Sexism is the accusation being lobbed at Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #56)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:35 PM

67. I believe he was condescending.

But I also think he is condescending to both genders when he has his dander up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #21)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:05 PM

64. Tone conveys meaning.

 

Often, the meaning is the opposite of the spoken word. Tone should not be ignored or belittled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #64)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:33 PM

66. "With all due respect, Bless your heart."

Not directed at you at all, just providing an example in validation or your comment.


Or, to cite another example--

Speaker A: "Two negatives make a positive, but two positives never make a negative."

Speaker B: ""Oh, yeah, riiiiiiight."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #66)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:40 PM

69. Exactly

 

You can kiss my a_ _.

You can kiss my a_ _!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #69)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:41 PM

71. With all due respect… (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #64)

Wed May 13, 2015, 05:02 PM

75. Or, ...

 

the non-racist ... "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman."

Oh, wait ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #21)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:53 PM

74. PC police? I don't think so ...

 

unless "PC" stands for "Protective Complaining."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:08 PM

18. Good grief, we do not. He struck out in a moment of stress...uncalled for and unlike his usual

 

calm. He goofed. Sounded Paternalistic. Period, the end. How you claim to speak for Progressives is not rational, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #18)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:15 PM

25. Obama or Sherrod?

 

Paternalistic would be Sherrod feeling the need to rescue Warren, who can handle herself just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #25)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:20 PM

27. Creative change there...some feel the need to Rescue Obama.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #27)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:47 PM

37. From baseless BS allegations? Sure, why not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #37)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:55 PM

43. It's my opinion, and last I heard those were allowed here. For myself, I no longer use the

 

pejorative letters BS, especially when talking about Bernie Sanders. Just a thought/opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #25)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:41 PM

35. so you call the president by last name and senator by first name? there ya go nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #35)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:45 PM

36. I'm not the one claiming it's sexist to do so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #36)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:51 PM

40. Paternalism is not sexism...it's acting like a Parent. As I've stated...I don't think it was sexist

 

or racist. I would have used parentalism, but it's not a word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #40)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:54 PM

41. But Sherrod claimed Obama was being sexist.

 

That's what I'm commenting on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #41)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:57 PM

45. Oh, I've had no stated opinion on that. But I'd go for Tacky and Illtimed, at best.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #41)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:04 PM

50. i think most people don't even know what that word means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #25)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:55 PM

42. that's someone having your back. women know the difference...

but thanks for trying to mansplain that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:04 PM

9. I was going to wait for a female to weigh in on that ...

 

BS from Brown.

Funny how the constant "rude", "talking down to" and "disrespectful tones" directed at this President is summarily dismissed as racist attacks by progressives; but, disagreement with Warren (hell, ... saying that "Warren is wrong" is hardily embraced as sexist by that same cohort.

I'm shock!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:08 PM

17. see my comment above. it's most certainly a sexist tactic...

and i'm most certainly a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #17)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:12 PM

20. Okay ... Now care to comment on the tactics directed towards this President? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #20)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:15 PM

23. Elizabeth Warren has done nothing untoward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #23)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:22 PM

31. Yeah ... Okay ...

 

I suppose President Obama walked into office doing untoward stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #31)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:58 PM

46. that comment doesn't make any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #46)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:27 PM

65. Of course it doesn't. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #31)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:14 PM

53. yes, actually. you don't punch down. you don't resort to marginalizing women by

deploying tired old stereotypes. the fact that he went there in a policy debate defies logic. shows that he's the one who is being carried away by his emotions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #53)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:27 PM

57. That would be you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Thu May 14, 2015, 01:14 AM

84. He was extremely condescending to a woman who is a US Senator and who as it happens, is RIGHT

about this.

Was it sexist, no, I don't see sexism or racism in every comment made.

But it WAS extremely condescending and to be completely frank, it was STUPID. How can he say with a straight face that she 'doesn't know what she is talking about' when HE is responsible for denying both the American people AND Congress from seeing this 'agreement' he 's been busy working on in secret with his Corporate buddies?

If she's wrong, as he claims, then LET US SEE IT and WE will determine whether or not she's right or wrong.

But I read the leaks, and that was enough for me to know HE IS WRONG.

I'm not a fan of 'just trust me' politics, sorry. I DO trust those who are not afraid to tell the truth. And she is telling the truth because WE have seen the leaks! He is also extremely condescending to the people who elected him. He does appear to think we are stupid.

In fact he has made comments such as 'it is complicated, the American people wouldn't understand it' in relation to the bailouts eg. I have news for him, I think HE didn't understand it or he would never had the gall to say that 'nothing illegal happened here, it was immoral but not illegal'

THAT tells me HE doesn't understand it. There is no doubt about the criminal activiity that led to the global crash orchestrated KNOWINGLY by those he claims were 'just immoral'. As if being immoral is okay too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Thu May 14, 2015, 02:56 AM

85. Sexism is irrelevant. What is relevant is his approach to the people who

--busted ass to get him elected. Them he can condescend to--Repukes not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #2)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:08 PM

16. You think he was sexist toward Warren? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #16)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:10 PM

19. absolutely -- and it's the kind of debate team tactic that should be totally beneath him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #19)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:15 PM

24. What did Obama say that was sexist? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #24)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:16 PM

26. Don't bother, apparently it was just a "tone" that...

 

Is only reserved for women?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #26)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:21 PM

30. That could be it, by golly. They do exist, you know.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #26)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:37 PM

68. Except when that "tone" is directed towards this President ...

 

then, tone-deafness abounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #24)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:26 PM

33. his whole response to Warren was intended to belittle (in the Matt Bai interview)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #33)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:47 PM

38. What specifically did he say in the interview that u think was sexist? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #38)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:00 PM

47. he used classic sexist tactics to marginalizing speech as "emotional" and not "logical," while

at the same time using a belittling tone. this isn't that hard. i KNOW, though, that it's ideology for some that the president can do no wrong. well, he's human. he screwed up here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #47)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:32 PM

59. So it was nothing specific that he said...it was his "tone" that was sexist. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #59)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:40 PM

70. And amazingly ...

 

some are completely tone-deaf when the tone is directed towards this President.

Also amazing that economics would be the path way to a new cohort with misogynist awareness.

Go figure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:44 PM

3. this paragraph

 

He’s a “community organizer” who promised to “put on his comfortable shoes” to march with unions on worker protections. Of course, he also downgraded that in his Yahoo interview to a less strenuous “stand with” unions. Sorry guys. These Nikes are comfortable, but they’re not that comfortable. That pinch you feel is the suffering of slave labor in Vietnam, and the loss jobs here at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romeo.lima333 (Reply #3)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:13 PM

52. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:46 PM

4. Wow!! This has major

consequences for all of the Third Way dingdongs,who thought they could slam this TTPP up everyone's behind. Just imagine the the phone calls from Larry Sommers and Mr. Obama,Sorry old Pal,the dupes up on the Hill woke up and voted for something else. Yes!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #4)

Wed May 13, 2015, 01:53 PM

5. the narrative changed so quickly yesterday you could feel the whoosh

no one expected it. i have to hand it to harry reid for calling this play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #5)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:06 PM

13. Lot's of I.O.U.'s were called on this baby.

The downside of this Legislation is enormous for the workers of the U.S.. Reid knows what would happen to Vegas if this crap succeeded. The crying sounds were deafening yesterday coming out of the White House. Lovin it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #13)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:14 PM

22. i'm actually surprised at the WH response to the vote

the whole thing is baffling -- it seems like they keep digging themselves further in a hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #22)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:00 PM

63. Appears the White House and the McTurtle

might have cut a deal to bring this POS back up for a vote again. Got a hunch we will see a Voice Vote and screw a Recorded Vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #4)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:28 PM

58. Fuck a bunch of Third Way dingdongs.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:05 PM

10. Not so fast! It's going back to the Senate for another try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #10)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:06 PM

14. doesn't matter. it's going to pass the senate eventually,

but this vote was a bellwether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #14)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:21 PM

29. They'll add a couple of sweetners and enough Dems will support it because of that.


The truth is -- despite all the public political displays and posturing -- most Congressfolks know we have to do stuff like this or the economy will stagnate for decades, or just flat tank.

Doing nothing, as folks like Senator Brown seem to support, will not put one new job in Ohio.


Edit -- Looks like sweetners have already been added --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026666906

The currency manipulation aspect would be a really good addition, if a workable proposal exists. That would actually produce substantial jobs here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:26 PM

32. Exactly! Progressive ranting and gnashing of teeth did absolutely nothing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #32)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:27 PM

34. I was just adding a link to your OP. Good find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:49 PM

39. won't pass the house. it'll get out of the Senate, b/c that what the Senate does...

is make these kinds of deals. we haven't even begun to see the hell, fire and brimstone that's going to rain down when the bill reaches the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #39)

Wed May 13, 2015, 05:36 PM

77. Repukes control the house. It will pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Thu May 14, 2015, 12:24 AM

82. Wouldn't a bunch of infrastructure projects put jobs here even in Ohio? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #82)

Thu May 14, 2015, 01:02 AM

83. Yes, but that's a different matter. I'm all for it. Would prefer to see both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #10)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:07 PM

15. From what I've read,

 

the Senate is supposed to be the "easier part".

It's supposed to be in worse shape in the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:05 PM

11. Absolutely. Paternalistic is the word for his unhinged and reactionary response to the push-back

 

to Warren. Under stress we all do things we shouldn't, but can't deny they are in there somewhere. My dad used to say, "If you don't have a goat to git, no one can git your goat."

And yes, the Warren/Sanders Wing of the Party is full steam ahead. That took some wings out of the proverbial sail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #11)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:02 PM

49. i believe that wind is squarely at our backs now.

just a few months ago there was a virtual blackout of TPP on major news outlets. the more people know about it, the more they don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #49)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:09 PM

51. Bernie flies in on the same wind because, as used to be said about Bill C, Bernie has a way of

 

'splaining things so people can really understand it. It's a gift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 02:21 PM

28. Don't worry, Mrs. Nafta will save us all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #28)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:01 PM

48. i know, right :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:20 PM

54. Hillary should run as Hillary

She should not try to sound like Elizabeth Warren or she will lose in a landslide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:20 PM

55. Repeatedly lying to the electorate has consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 03:41 PM

60. It appears to be un-blocked ( or about to be). So much for our 15 minute revolution (MSM-wise).

Senate Reaches Deal on Trade (Updated)
By Steven Dennis
Posted at 2:50 p.m. today 5-13-15

Updated 3:17 p.m. | Senate leaders agreed to a deal to get President Barack Obama’s fast-track trade bill back on track Wednesday, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offering separate votes first on two bills demanded by Democrats.

That includes the key customs bill with currency enforcement provisions opposed by the White House, as well as a trade preference bill aimed at helping developing countries. Both will face a 60-vote threshold, with votes planned for Thursday.


http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-reaches-deal-on-trade/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ford_Prefect (Reply #60)

Wed May 13, 2015, 05:24 PM

76. One has to wonder, except for those who were always against it, if those Democrats who voted to

block it for less than a day, and then voted today to proceed, if it was just a silly ass game so they could say they voted against fast track, to appeal to one group, and then say they voted for it to appeal to another group

Typical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:47 PM

72. I'm not so sure about this.

The Dinos and Neo-con Dems and Reps voted against it because they wanted to line up their ducks better before it went to a floor debate—so that when it does come up, it will really pass.

I don't think things are what we progressives hope. The Reps and corporate Dems do want the TPP even though they voted against it today. We may have won the news cycle optics but may still lose the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 04:51 PM

73. Well if someone called "thefloridasqueeze" thinks so....

 

It must be true. LOL!

Most voters eyes glaze over on this stuff, and it sure won't be prominent a year from now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #73)

Wed May 13, 2015, 07:39 PM

79. And 543,000 other news stories of course (LOL)

(0.38 second Google search of "TPP Warren Obama"

Seriously, "nothing to see here, move along?"

About the TPP fight.


Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #79)

Wed May 13, 2015, 07:44 PM

80. Oh BS.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #80)

Wed May 13, 2015, 09:26 PM

81. Well it is leading the news and everything.


Go ahead and look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Wed May 13, 2015, 06:03 PM

78. I've never seen Obama like this.

The problem he's got in arguing for what he wants is exactly the problem with the TPP. He can't / won't say what's in it. Which is why it looks so strange trying to laugh off these very logical concerns, held by plenty of serious, well-informed people, as though they were inconceivable.

If he could explain why Stiglitz and Warren and Sherrod Brown shouldn't worry about what they're worried about, we might not be having the discussion at all, either because Obama and the Republicans are right and everything is reasonably fine, or because it never would have gotten out of the gate with what's in it had people known.

But recall, Warren says she was told the very reason the TPP was classified was because it would create a public outcry if the terms were known.

I thought Sherrod Brown's comments on Chris Hayes last night were great. He didn't want to dwell on his earlier comment that he thought Obama got too personal with Warren, and then he laid out examples of all the previous trade agreements, all of which were promised to add American jobs and did not.

So it's fairly obvious that Warren and everyone else are not being ridiculous or illogical, and it was a tone-deaf way for Obama to approach it.

Dismissal is just not a credible tone to take with something like this. Had Obama acknowledged the problems with past trade deals and the concerns with the details we know about this one, he would have sounded much more convinced of his own opinion than he did saying things like "it's not logical" and "Why would I do that?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread