2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAnti-TPP Amendment Fails at Heated Dem Platform Meeting
Nike Knight
Common Dreams
When Democratic Party platform committee members arrived at the committee's final session in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday morning, 700,000 signed petitions against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement had been delivered there to meet them.
Yet despite passionate arguments and widespread public opposition to the deal, the committee voted down an amendment that would have opposed a Senate vote on the agreement.
The amendment was introduced by activist and author Jim Hightower, who called the TPP "manure" in his argument for his amendment:
Jim Hightower speaking for clear & specific anti-#TPP amendment: "Old saying, if you're not at the table you're on the menu" #DemPlatform
Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) July 9, 2016
Opposition to the TPP is a cornerstone of Sanders' presidential campaign. While Hillary Clinton campaigned for the deal in her role as secretary of state, she switched her position several months ago and now publicly opposes the TPP.
CSPAN continues to broadcast the meeting live.
Bad policy and worse politics. This will allow Trump to continue to hammer on Mrs. Clinton and cast him self as the candidate of working America. Serious misstep.
villager
(26,001 posts)....platform, either.
Meaning both candidates will be free to spin a position separate from each party's "official" one.
Ross Perot got 19% of the vote without the backing of a major party and without 24 years of free trade destroying the lives of working people in the United States. I don't want to hand that to Mr. Trump.
villager
(26,001 posts)One wonders if this would provide an opening for Gary Johnson, in the Perot role, but I can't imagine the Libertarians being "officially" against further corporate capture of our government, and trade, either.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Trump, full of shit though he may be, is talking populist talk and that will resonate with some people. He's mixing it with racism and nativism which is a nasty combination. The Democrats have the opportunity to put forward a progressive answer to neoliberalism, but it doesn't look like that's forthcoming.
Given a choice between a demagogue who's pretending to address real concerns vs. a party that appears uninterested, a lot of people are going to go with the demagogue. It's terrible electoral strategy. This gives Trump ammunition to say that Mrs. Clinton is not sincere in her opposition to TPP, and that's to his advantage.
villager
(26,001 posts)Another danger is the upcoming lame duck session, for this last bit of "hope and change" flung in our direction.
But Trump won't be able to say he represents a party that is against it, and I assume Clinton is smart enough to bring up even more enthusiastic GOP support for the TPP, when the issue comes up.
But can she pushed into actually supporting it, when said "push" comes to shove?
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Dave Johnson
Common Dreams
Here is why the push is on. The so-called lame duck session of Congress is particularly unaccountable. Those who might have been tossed in the November elections are still able to vote. Newly elected and reelected legislators are not yet sworn in, so they cant vote. And reelected legislators have the opportunity to pay back the big donors who funded their campaigns, knowing voters have two long years to forget what they did.
For example, Rep. Randy Forbes, a Republican representing Virginias 4th congressional district who is a proponent of TPP, lost his primary to Scott Taylor, a TPP opponent who called the deal Obamatrade in the Republican primary. The TPP, and Forbes earlier vote for fast track trade authority to grease the skids for TPP, was a major issue in the primary.
But even though Forbes was tossed out by his constituents because of his support for fast track and TPP, he will still be able to vote if TPP comes up in the lame duck session of Congress. Forbes will be looking for a job probably from the very corporations that support TPP.
See if you can guess which way he will vote on TPP, after being tossed out for supporting free trade.
The lame duck session gives incentives to vote for unpopular legislation. This also hurts Mrs. Clinton because she does not support TPP but her brand is to build on top of Obama's foundation. This short circuits her sales pitch.
On the other hand, Trump's brand has been running against the GOP establishment, so having the backing of a party that disagrees with him plays into his narrative.
This really is the nexus of bad policy and bad politics for Democrats.
That said, progressives and working people will carry on the fight.
villager
(26,001 posts)....undercut Clinton on the campaign trail.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Oh me, oh ,my. it sounds like I have to buy General Mills of Post.
Can't we just have ideas, position, good or bad?
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)that will have been added to the bill
villager
(26,001 posts)dishatin
(9 posts)The 'Democratic Platform Committee'is as disconnected from the citizens of this country and life in America today as never becore. The Democratic Platform Committee members crave power for themselves and display amoral selfishness and self entitlement. Once again one must ask who runs the Democratic Party? Will the real Democratic Party please stand up? All supporters of TPP might consider joining the GOP as they represent not the core principles of the Democratic Party.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)He, nor any other Democrat, should not be promoting any legislation that looks anything like the TPP.
Save Obama's legacy and stop him from shoving it down our throats in the lame duck session.
annavictorious
(934 posts)The Democratic party is not going to include platform language that embarrasses a sitting president.
This lost 116-64.
It wasn't even close.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Remember that Democrats lost Congress for the first time in a generation over NAFTA.
annavictorious
(934 posts)And he will.
The ego problem is with the people who want to be able to claim credit for what is going to happen anyway.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)whathehell
(29,096 posts)Agreed.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Even if it undermines the person who's actually running!
annavictorious
(934 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)How would an amendment opposing a senate vote have done anything other than embarrass Obama and give the Republicans a "divided party" narrative?
It was meaningless grandstanding.
And that's why it lost so resoundingly.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)If you are worried about a "divided party" narrative, don't divide the party, in reality, by promoting policies that only a small minority of Democrats support, over the wishes of the vast majority of Democrats.
The folks opposing NAFTA *still* oppose it, now. And the folks opposing the TPP will always oppose it.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Anybody who's going to vote for TPP is not going to care whether the platform says Democrats oppose it.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)Thank You!
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)It will complete our transition to an oligarchy and destroy what's left of the middle class. This is a deal breaker for me.
annavictorious
(934 posts)I am no great fan of Obama, but the platform is going to give him the cover he needs to make TPP quietly go away.
There's an element of gamesmanship that some are missing in their overarching desire to claim bragging rights and to grab credit.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)There was no way the party was going to let Bernie Sanders take a potshot at the President.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)And undermine the candidate.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Pushing for it to be there was a petty potshot at the President.
Hillary has already gone on record saying it will not go through in its current forum.
annavictorious
(934 posts)Look at the link provided.
One candidate has "apparatchiks".
The other candidate has "integrity".
KMOD
(7,906 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)It's in reply to your post as well.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)In the words of Richard Trumpka
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/04/richard-trumka-donald-trump-anti-trade-hypocrisy
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)She may have to support it against her will now.
I wish we had a "how convenient" smiley.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)in any way, shape or form.
annavictorious
(934 posts)to a 5 year old.
Luckily there were enough adults in the room (116-64) to reign in the grand-standers.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Democrats lost Congress for the first time since the New Deal was passed.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)This isn't about free trade agreements, it's about understanding what a platform actually is. The platform is completely irrelevant to whether TPP gets voted on, and to whether it passes if it does get voted on.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Bernie is The adult in the room--We should have listened to him all along.
Bernie Sanders on the right side of history.:
Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivers a House speech against a fast track trade agreement with Mexico, urging instead national investment in American employment and infrastructure. May 9, 1991:
Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calls for the rejection of a free trade partnership with China highlighting the gross suppression of freedom and democracy in China and the consequent erosion of American labor that would result.:
"You don't need a PHD in economics to understand what these trade deals are about!" Bernie Sanders
think
(11,641 posts)And yet the party chooses not to listen. There is a HUGE disconnect.
Unfortunately it seems that corporate profits and influence are out weighing the complaints of all these different groups who are united in their opposition.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/18/top-house-democrat-on-trade-opposes-trans-pacific-partnership/
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP/Ten-Critical-Problems-with-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership
http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2016/03/major-environmental-landowner-indigenous-groups-congress-learn-keystone-xl
http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/more-dozen-environmental-organizations-warn-trans-pacific-partnership-risks
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/12/trans-pacific-partnership-serious-rights-concerns
Elizabeth Warren just made a very well reasoned plea to try and stop the passage of this corporate rigged process:
And everyone knows that the corporations basically wrote the TPP for their own benefit:
by Mike Masnick - Mon, Jun 8th 2015 9:29am
Back in 2013, we wrote about a FOIA lawsuit that was filed by William New at IP Watch. After trying to find out more information on the TPP by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and being told that they were classified as "national security information" (no, seriously), New teamed up with Yale's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic to sue. As part of that lawsuit, the USTR has now released a bunch of internal emails concerning TPP negotiations, and IP Watch has a full writeup showing how industry lobbyists influenced the TPP agreement, to the point that one is even openly celebrating that the USTR version copied his own text word for word.
What is striking in the emails is not that government negotiators seek expertise and advice from leading industry figures. But the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders.
The article highlights numerous examples of what appear to be very chummy relationships between the USTR and the "cleared advisors" from places like the RIAA, the MPAA and the ESA. They regularly share text and have very informal discussions, scheduling phone calls and get togethers to further discuss. This really isn't that surprising, given that the USTR is somewhat infamous for its revolving door with lobbyists who work on these issues. In fact, one of the main USTR officials in the emails that IP Watch got is Stan McCoy, who was the long term lead negotiator on "intellectual property" issues. But he's no longer at the USTR -- he now works for the MPAA.
You can read through the emails, embedded below, which show a very, very chummy relationship, which is quite different from how the USTR seems to act with people who are actually more concerned about what's in the TPP (and I can use personal experience on that...). Of course, you'll notice that the USTR still went heavy on the black ink budget, so most of the useful stuff is redacted. Often entire emails other than the salutation and signature line are redacted.
Read more:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150605/11483831239/revealed-emails-show-how-industry-lobbyists-basically-wrote-tpp.shtml
When the TPP was "fast tracked" only 28 House Dems vote for it. Around 190 members of the GOP voted to fast track the TPP. The overwhelming majority of Democrats in congress voted against fast tracking the TPP
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/18/1394407/-These-are-the-28-Democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track-twice
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-so-many-democrats-rejected-obamas-lobbying-trans-pacific-trade-deal/
stopbush
(24,397 posts)off Hillary's lead over Trump...or not.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)stopbush
(24,397 posts)Elections are never decided on a single issue. Never.
How can support of TPP by the Ds hurt them when the Rs also support it? Do you really think people are going to cast their vote based on a non-issue? Are you going to vote for Trump and the Rs support for TPP just to poke your finger in the eye of the Ds for not opposing TPP?
w4rma
(31,700 posts)But neoliberal Democratic presidents promote, sign and campaign for these 'free' trade agreements, so the public blames Democrats.
stopbush
(24,397 posts)majority of Americans.
The worst thing the party could have done would have been to publicly rebuke Obama over an issue that isn't an issue. It now sits buried in the platform where few will notice, along with the planks that Sanders WAS successful getting included.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)entire ability to win the Republican primary. And these 'free' trade agreements are a key piece in why Sanders nearly defeated Clinton for the Democratic primary. And these 'free' trade agreements are a huge reason for the rise of income inequality in America, the Occupy Wall Street Protests and the economic issues facing the vast majority of Americans, currently.
These 'free' trade agreements will result in the populist right-wing (fascists) taking over America's government, eventually.
stopbush
(24,397 posts)metric you look at. Only in Sandersworld is losing by 13-14% equal to "nearly" winning. Sheesh!
Honestly, it's way too early to attempt to rewrite history.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)our meaningless attempt at grandstanding!"
116-64
Let reasonable people prevail over sloganeers.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)annavictorious
(934 posts)and again in 2016?
Here's a link to the actual Krugman article. It concerns deficit hawks and austerity budgets. I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/opinion/austeritys-grim-legacy.html?_r=1
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's one issue I disagree with my preferred candidate on. I wish Hillary supported but understand that she doesn't given the emotionally charged opposition from those who don't understand what it is all about and believe the rhetorical hyperbole from those who are against it.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)to avoid putting anything in writing opposing the TPP.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)to avoid putting anything in writing opposing the TPP.
kthnxbai
w4rma
(31,700 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)But don't let the facts get in the way of smearing our Democratic candidate.
annavictorious
(934 posts)who truly do not understand what a platform is and why a meaningless amendment with language embarrassing to a sitting president is counterproductive to the party's goals.
They want bragging rights. They want to believe that they're revolutionary. And they've been in a echo chamber for so long that they can't face the fact that reasonable, thoughtful, progressive people disagree with them.
116-64
The measure lost 36% to 64%. It was trounced. Stop trying to shove terrible ideas down people's throats.
think
(11,641 posts)"embarrassment" of any political figure. Only considering how it will effect the president as an individual just isn't a realistic way to look at important trade deals.
This isn't a football game where people are just rooting for a team in a game with no long term repercussions. This is America's future that is at stake. The lives of people around the globe will be affected by this trade deal. It should work for EVERYONE not just powerful corporations that will profit from it.
And the majority of House Democrats warned a long time ago that there were major concerns with the TPP process:
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21
The top Democrat on trade and many other Democrats are STILL openly opposed to the TPP in it's current form:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/18/top-house-democrat-on-trade-opposes-trans-pacific-partnership/
Everyone KNOWS the corporations wrote this for their benefit and profits. The American people have few avenues to try and stop this corporate written trade agreement from passing in the lame duck session. And if it does pass it will be by an overwhelming number for Republicans in congress rather than the Democrats.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150605/11483831239/revealed-emails-show-how-industry-lobbyists-basically-wrote-tpp.shtml
w4rma
(31,700 posts)And you could care less about how NAFTA handed Congress to the Republicans for the first time since the New Deal.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Can you tell me the numbers for tonight's Powerball drawing?
Tal Vez
(660 posts)Clinton should be given what she wants the platform to say about TPP. She may want it to be silent on the issue, affording her maximum flexibility during the campaign.