Plan B Forum

And breaks his fingers:

Democrats deal Obama huge defeat on trade

The House on Friday dealt a staggering blow to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, as Democrats turned en masse against the president just hours after he made a direct appeal to salvage a centerpiece of his second-term platform.

Lawmakers easily defeated a measure to help workers displaced by free trade known as Trade Adjustment Assistance. The aid package needed to pass in order to enact companion legislation that would give Obama fast-track trade authority to complete the sweeping, 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.

The vote on the TAA bill was 126-302.

“Whatever the deal is with other countries,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said before the vote, breaking her longtime silence on the issue, “we want a better deal for America’s workers.”

The vote came after President Barack Obama, in a last-ditch effort, made a rare visit to the Capitol to lobby for legislation. He implored Democrats to “play it straight” on the decisive vote.

Obama spent roughly 40 minutes with Democratic lawmakers, taking no questions but telling his party to “vote your values,” according to a source in the room.

But Democratic lawmakers rebuffed him hours later, voting overwhelmingly to scuttle the trade package that was a centerpiece of the president’s second-term agenda. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had remained silent for weeks on the trade issue, went to the House floor shortly before the vote to speak against the trade deal.

Afterward, Pelosi linked trade to her party’s uphill effort to enact a long-term highway funding bill. “The prospects for passage of” the trade bill, she wrote in a letter to fellow Democrats, “will greatly increase with the passage of a robust highway bill.”

After TAA failed, the House approved fast-track legislation, known as Trade Promotion Authority, in a 219-211 vote. But that vote was largely for show, because enactment of TPA is contingent on approval of TAA.

The House could vote again on TAA next week. If enough votes flipped to pass it, it would mean that TPA prevailed as well, because the two bills are interconnected.

House Republican leaders say they have 100 votes for TAA, and Democrats would need to provide 118 if another vote happens. On Friday, Democrats provided 40 votes for TAA, while 86 Republicans supported it. In other words, Democrats would need to essentially triple their vote total to pass the measure.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/b ... 18927.html

Obama is a lame duck. I'm sure he's not crying in his beer over this. Besides, his legacy highlight was set on November 4th, 2008. He'll be remembered daily for the next millennia.

I get the sense that he's setting up Hillary for failure in 2016. As Hillary remarked in 2007, "where the fuck did he come from?"

Bush/Rubio... 2016.

Bush/Rubio... 2016.

I like your thinking there Ray, but unfortunately an archaic provision of the Constitution prohibits having a President and Vice President from the same state...

So:

Bush/Kasich or Rubio/Kasich, or Kasich/Rubio....

(I'm a big fan of gettin' that Florida-Ohio thing goin' on... )

If it isn't the final vote then I suspect we are just seeing some initial negotiating positions get established.

Dems are saying " we'd like a little more please" and now Obama can go back to Boner and say "if you give them a little more you and I can get what we would like too"


Well see

Yrs,
Rubato

And just as predicted, it passes.


http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8836213/se ... rack-trade



yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote:And just as predicted, it passes.


http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8836213/se ... rack-trade



yrs,
rubato

Without giving squat to the lefty House Democrats...

They hoisted themselves on their own petard; now they wont get the part of the bill they actually wanted, that they thought they were being clever by voting against...

They got what they wanted.

That is why the vote changed.


yrs,
rubato

They got what they wanted.

LMAO...

You mean all that additional money for the highway fund?

Oh wait....

Rube, I'm going to explain this for you slowly, so hopefully you can follow it...

(Though I'm not holding out much hope; explaining things slowly for you hasn't proven to have good effect in the past...But what can I say, like Mr. Reagan, I'm an eternal optimist... )

It's a little bit complicated...(well, not that complicated but probably complicated for you...)

Here's the sequence of events:

The Senate originally passed a "fast track" authority compromise bill, that also included as a part of the legislation "trade adjustment assistance" ; funds for workers who might be displaced as a result of the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP)

Then it went to the House, and they divided into two different bills...

Because of the deal struck in The Senate, Pelosi and co. thought they'd be really clever by voting against the "trade adjustment assistance" bill, even though that was something that House Democrats were strongly in favor of...

Pelosi and her minions made a Machiavellian calculation that there wouldn't be enough GOP votes for that bill to pass it, (they turned out to be correct in that calculation; 80 Republicans voted for it, but only 40 Democrats)

And therefore, given the deal that was struck in The Senate, the whole "fast track" agreement would collapse, even though the Fast Track authority as a stand alone bill in the House, passed 219-211...

[Are you still with me rube? Are you able to follow this? Am I goin' too fast for you ol' buddy? Just let me know and I'll slow it down...]

Pelosi, flush with victory and triumphalism by being able to sink the bill her own party supported, thought she could hold out for another bite of the apple to give Obama the fast track authority for the TPP, tying it to additional funds for The Highway Bill:

“The prospects for passage of” the trade bill, she wrote in a letter to fellow Democrats, “will greatly increase with the passage of a robust highway bill.”

But apparently, despite all the time she has spent on The Hill, she really didn't understand the dynamics of the Senate...

Instead of trying to come up with some new compromise package to placate Pelosi and her cohorts, McConnell divided the original package in two just like the House did, and he cobbled together the 60 votes he needed to pass Fast Track as "stand alone" legislation, (just as the House did)

So Fast Track authority has now passed both Houses of Congress, and goes to the President for his signature...

In order to get the 60 votes he needed to get this done, McConnell agreed to have an up or down vote on the "trade adjustment assistance" part of the original bill separately.

Maybe it will pass, maybe it wont, (it's certainly going to take some GOP votes in the Senate to pass it) but even if it does, it will die when it's voted on in the House, because even though the Dems will do a complete about face and vote for it en masse, they will no longer have the 80 Republican votes that voted for it as part of the compromise agreement....

Like I said; too clever by half and hoisted on her own petard...

Do you whack off while re-reading the rants you post in reply to rubato?

Seems like the kind of thing you might do.

Do you run a Mr. Buzzy over your clit when you direct your smarmy attacks at me and fantasize about the attention you'll get from me when I respond?

Seems like the kind of thing you might do....

ETA:

BTW, being a political junkie, I was going to post about the whole process between the House and the Senate that was in play here when I had had a chance to do so, because I find it to be an interesting example of contemporary Congressional politics in action...

The fact that rube teed it up for me by once again trumpeting the fact that he is a complete ignoramus about the workings of US politics (among so many other topics) just made it a two fer...

bigskygal wrote:Do you whack off while re-reading the rants you post in reply to rubato?

Seems like the kind of thing you might do.

I believe "get a room" is the expression.

Is anybody here willing to admit that the GOP gave Barry what he wanted FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY? They put partisanship aside and supported a loathed President, simply because it was the right thing to do?

Didn't think so.

Is anybody here Republican willing to admit that the GOP President gave Barry Republicans what he they wanted FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY? They He put partisanship aside and supported a loathed President (by his own party) policy, simply because it was the right thing to do?

Didn't think so.

FTFY

I'm prepared to give Obama some credit for this; in many ways it might have been easier for him to just give in to the populist demagoguery opposing this that has been embraced by the base of his party.

On the other hand, it shows once again just how ineffectual this President has been in being able to exert effective leadership over his own party, a lack of effectiveness that has existed since virtually the day he took office. When Pelosi basically told him to fuck himself on the stimulus bill, that she and her cronies would write it. (The result was a huge payoff to the public sector unions.)

Since he showed so much weakness then, both Pelosi and Reid have regularly rolled him. (Reid did it on the public option trigger on Obamacare, and Pelosi did it when her lefties balked at the budget deal Obama had struck with Boehner, and demanded even more tax increases, to name just two examples.)

The members of his own party on the Hill do not have, and have never had, any fear of being on his bad side. That's a terrible problem for a President.

Econoline, write your own fucking post, asshole.

This measure prevents the UNIONS and their Democrat toadies from fucking with trade agreements that benefit the OTHER 95% of the population (not private-sector union members or their dependents).

Okay, Dave, just for you...

It's obvious that the vote gives the GOP more of what it wants than it gives the party the President nominally leads. I don't agree with Obama on this, but I think that HE must think he's doing it "FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY". He handed the GOP a victory, not the other way around...








...asshole.

LordJim, thanks for the explanation of the TPP/TPA/TAA/ASS/BLAHBLAHBLAH shenanigans. I've been trying to figure out what congress was doing and got lost in the acronyms.

Thanks again

You're welcome oldr...

You would think that somebody who's been around DC (and been in leadership) as long as Pelosi wouldn't make such a rookie mistake, but she obviously badly underestimated McConnell's skill at rounding up votes....

Econo, what, exactly, is your beef with the concept of an up-or-down vote?

How can any President negotiate a beneficial deal knowing that Congress might eviscerate it? Why would any trade partner negotiate seriously with an Administration that cannot make commitments?

I happen to think that this particular Administration has the worst record in recent memory in negotiating anything, but regardless, The President should have sufficient power to negotiate a good deal, and without this he is hamstrung.