The Monsanto bill is a perfect example of focusing on a Presidential veto FAIL

[ProSense]

He failed us - Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act! It's Time to Label GMOs!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022574354

The bill passed with a veto proof majority, and the section of the bill was not the primary goal. Here's the letter being sent to take action:

Dear President Obama,

I'm outraged that Congress allowed Section 735, the Monsanto Protection Act in a short-term spending bill and passed it and that you have now signed it into law. This is a deep betrayal of our most basic constitutional rights and by signing H.R. 933 without issuing a signing statement or taking other actions to block this provision you have allowed great harm to America's family farmers, our environment and our democracy.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act_time_to_label_gmos/?akid=807.703867.cdshjh&rd=1&t=3

"Outraged that Congress" passed a bill. It's too late.

Here's the Senate vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00044

The bill passed 73 to 26.

Here are the 25 Republicans and one Democrat who voted against the bill:


NAYs ---26

Ayotte (R-NH)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)

[MineralMan]

1. I do see one Democrat on that list.

Apparently, though, every other Democrat voted for the bill. That raises some questions. Are they all supporters of GMO foods and Monsanto? I hardly think so. Instead, they were interested in passing a continuing authorization bill so the government didn't shut down. Apparently, there weren't enough votes to keep that section out of the bill, though.

President Obama signed this, right? Democrats voted for it, right? Why are people blaming only President Obama for the bill?

Focusing too closely on single issues can sometimes cloud people's thinking, I believe. This may be such a case.

[ProSense]

2. You're right, fixed.

The President doesn't have a line-item veto, and he's not going to veto a continuing resolution over a single provision that isn't the primary goal of the bill, which is to fund the government and avoid a shutdown.

The expectation is absurd.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. This bill was a difficult one to create, and a necessary

one. There was one section that some people don't like? And, despite almost unanimous support by Democrats, the President is supposed to veto the entire bill? Not a chance. That is not how our federal government operates. It can't be. Continuing resolutions like this one seem to be how we fund our government agencies these days. Vetoing the bill would have cut off funding for all sorts of things.

Single issues do not make a political party or a Congress do anything. Real world issues do, and funding is a real world issue.

[ProSense]

4. It's just stupid.

Not the issue, but the faux outrage, which is exactly what it is.

Even if the bill passed with a simple majority, who the hell would expect the President to veto a bill to avoid a government shutdown over a single provision. People would be better off demanding that Congress revisit the issue.

[MineralMan]

5. For some, the fact that President Obama signed it

is enough. Any port in a storm, when it comes to find something to attack him with.

[Cha]

8. It is absurd.. but that doesn't stop the

hair on fire spreading around the net.

Obama Can’t Fix Congress’ Monsanto Giveaway with an Executive Order

The problem is that the President does not have line item veto power; it’s all or nothing. This is called a poison pill. As part of the short term spending bill, President Obama had to sign the resolution in order to prevent the federal government from shutting down today, March 27, when the current funding was set to expire. He doesn’t get to cherry pick what parts he signs into law. He either lets the goverment shut down or he signs the poison pill.

http://www.politicususa.com/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html

Activists should learn the rules.. it makes them more credible. I'm glad they're out there fighiting against frankenfoods but don't be saying "Pres Obama failed us".. when you don't know wth you're talking about.

[ProSense]

10. No mention

of the fact that this was the CR. Calling it the Monsanto Protection Act like it was a stand alone bill when it was a provision attached to a the bill to prevent a government shutdown. That's disingenuous at best. Ignoring that the bill was passed with the overwhelming support of the Democratic caucus to launch an attack on the President over this is pure silliness.

[Jim Lane]

11. If Republican blackmail keeps working, they'll keep doing it.

You write "The expectation is absurd." To my mind, what's absurd is expecting that the Republicans will abandon a tactic that works for them.

What happens when, next time there's a must-pass bill, they insist on a rider that attacks reproductive rights, or promotes mountaintop removal mining, or whatever their cause of the month is?

Here's an alternative tactic: Obama vetoes the bill but says he'll sign a clean continuing resolution, and let the Monsanto provision go through the normal legislative process. Republicans who vote against the clean bill are the ones trying to shut down the government. Do you think they'll be eager to do that, considering how well it worked for Newt Gingrich? See you in 2014, suckers.

[ProSense]

13. The

"If Republican blackmail keeps working, they'll keep doing it. If Republican blackmail keeps working, they'll keep doing it. You write 'The expectation is absurd.' To my mind, what's absurd is expecting that the Republicans will abandon a tactic that works for them. "

...expectation of a veto is absurd. Also, you say "Republican blackmail." Congress is the legislature. Members of Congress are the ones adding these proposals to legislation. It's up to Senate Democrats to stop.

While there are no definite fingerprints for whoever is responsible for the rider, the earmark was allowed under the direction of Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (D-MD). Congress has held no hearings on this controversial biotech rider and many Democrats in the Committee were unaware of its presence in the CR. Additionally, Mikulski and the Senate Appropriations Committee failed to bring this rider in front of the Agriculture or Judiciary Committees, disregarding their expertise and jurisdiction and in blatant violation of common practice.

“In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338

[Jim Lane]

15. I agree that Obama is not solely to blame.

If the Senate Democrats had all held firm, this could have been prevented -- though, in the closely divided Senate, it takes only a few defectors to let the Republicans win. If, as seems likely from your excerpt, Mikulski was one of the culprits, that's a particular disappointment, because she's generally pretty good.

Was the expectation of a veto absurd? Well, I personally didn't expect a veto. Obama has generally not been inclined to play hardball with the Republicans.

Here he was faced with two bad alternatives. He could sign the bill, giving Monsanto its rider and also encouraging future such tactics on "must-pass" bills. Alternatively, he could veto the bill and send it back with a call for a clean CR, in which case he might have gotten a clean CR, because the Republicans wouldn't want to be blamed for a government shutdown, especially one that could accurately be depicted as flowing from their subservience to a big corporation. Of course, the danger is that he might not have gotten a clean CR and there would have been a shutdown.

That's the trouble with these games of chicken. If Obama is always the reasonable, responsible leader, the one who puts the overall welfare of the country ahead of whatever comparatively minor disagreement is at hand, then he'll always get rolled in these confrontations. Even getting all the Democrats to stick together doesn't solve the problem, because the House can (and will!) refuse to pass must-pass legislation unless they extort something for it.

So, if you're completely OK with Obama signing this bill, do you have a suggestion for the follow-up? Is there anything he can do to see to it that you and I aren't having this conversation again at some point?

[onenote]

16. You're dreaming if you think the blame would fall on the repubs

Congress, with support from a majority of Democrats in both Houses (indeed, with support from all but one Democrat in the Senate, including several Democrats who sponsored an amendment to strike the Monsanto provision that didn't get a vote), passes the CR to fund the government.

Let's say the president vetoed it. First, the media would have a field day with the president vetoing a bill that was supported by a majority of his own party, thereby putting the funding of the government back at risk.

Second, in order for the veto to have the effect you want it to -- forcing a "clean" resolution, you need enough Democrats to change their votes to put the government back at risk of a funding shutdown. The likelihood of that happening is next to zero, particularly when you consider that there were Democrats who wanted the Monsanto provision stripped out but when it didn't happen, they went along and voted for the CR. How do they justify their flip flop? And if they do flip-flop and sustain the veto, the president and the Democrats in Congress will be lambasted as being the gang that couldn't shoot straight and that precipitated the crisis.

[ReRe]

6. We can blame this squarely on the Senate Democrats....

.... lead by Harry Reid. Of course it was blackmail. They attached it to the bill he had to sign to fund the government. And of course they did this all last Friday night in their little overnight. This should teach us one thing.... never ever trust the congress late at night. Every single time they do those late-night/over-night sessions, there's some cramming going on. Doesn't matter if it's in the House or the Senate.
I'm about to throw up my hands. I'm gettin' outta' here right now.

[onenote]

17. You don't have your facts in order.

The version of the bill with the Monsanto language was submitted by Mikulski on March 11. The Mikulski version of the CR was over 200 pages longer than the one passed by the House (over majority Democratic opposition) and included a number of new items, reflecting the typical deal making that goes on when must pass legislation is on the table. Its not pretty, and I'm not defending the practice, but its a reality that has existed for a long time.

Tester and six other Democrats submitted an amendment to strip that language on March 13. That amendment was one of dozens submitted on the 13th. A whole bunch more amendments were submitted on the 14th. More on the 18th and 20th. In total, there were over 100 amendments submitted, but fewer than 20 were considered, and every one of the amendments that was voted on was voted down. (Around 9 or 10 amendments were approved by voice vote or unanimous consent).

The bill passed the Senate on March 20 at 3:42 pm. It passed the House at 10:54 AM the next day (after taking up the bill at 9:20 AM).

This wasn't some middle of the night deal. It wasn't some 'hidden' thing -- groups supporting the Tester amendment were pushing to get a vote on it all week. It just didn't happen, which is often the way it is when a multipart 'deal' gets struck that involves giving some thing to get other things. While I don't know all the details of what was in the final version compared to the version that passed the House earlier, but there must be a reason why, despite the addition of the monsanto language, a majority of the House Democrats voted for the Senate amended version after a majority of the House Democrats had opposed the pre-Senate amended version.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. You know what is amazing?

That you think those of us who are in this anti-GMO fight didn't actually understand that it was a rider to a spending Bill and that we, therefore, must be "educated" by you. That's what's amazing.

[ProSense]

9. Even more amazing is

You know what is amazing?

That you think those of us who are in this anti-GMO fight didn't actually understand that it was a rider to a spending Bill and that we, therefore, must be "educated" by you. That's what's amazing.

...your bullshit straw man. The OP is simply calling bullshit, bullshit.

Dear President Obama,

I'm outraged that Congress allowed Section 735...

Too late, but you knew that.

[HiPointDem]

12. These kind of riders are put into these kind of bills so both or either party can say, "But we *had*

to pass so & so, so we *had* to sign".

It's just to give them political cover.

As you are so ably demonstrating.

Just more corruption of the political process. as if we needed more evidence.

[99Forever]

14. Business as usual inside the Beltway Bubble.

Screw what the people want and need and kiss the Corporate Ass.

Thanks again, Mr President.