The 13 Democrats who just voted to move to debate on trade deal.

[madfloridian]

Senate votes to start trade debate

In a 65-33 vote, the Senate agreed to proceed to a package that would empower Obama to negotiate future trade deals with minimal interference from Congress and assist U.S. workers displaced by foreign competition.

“Today’s vote moves us closer to achieving a positive outcome for the people we represent,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “And I look forward to continued positive engagement from both the president and members of both parties as we move forward on these bills.”

Thirteen Democrats have voted in favor of moving to the bill so far: Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Tom Carper (Del.), Chris Coons (Del.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jeanne Shaheem (N.H.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The chamber is expected to vote on amendments to the package Tuesday, a process that could extend into June depending on how many proposals Democrats want to consider on the floor.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The usual suspects.

[beltanefauve]

8. Indeed

Tried to call Feinstein but couldn't get through. It's not like she actually cares about her constituents anyhow.

[C Moon]

65. I wrote Feinstein a couple days ago. Not that she cares.

[frylock]

72. I wrote her off years ago..

didn't vote for her last time, and have no intention of casting a vote for her ever again.

[TDale313]

74. Feinstein needs to go...

[denbot]

95. She should have been voted out years ago

California deserves a progressive senator in her place.

[truedelphi]

120. She is so bad that she almost makes Chris Christie look good!

She has re-written the entire code of ethics for the US Senate, so that she can vote in costly and bloody wars that her scummy little husband can then profit from.

She apparently even reveals secrets about war strategies that she receives from her position in various committees in the Senate, to the husband, so he can get his ducks in a row and bid on projects in the affected areas.

[catchnrelease]

91. Not surprised in the least

I knew she'd be on the list without even looking at it. She is disgusting.

[Maedhros]

12. Wyden is a bit of an outlier.

He and Udall were among those who first warned us of the TPP. Apparently, they were able to get to him.

He has become too sleazy to support anymore. I will work toward his defeat next election.

[themaguffin]

19. he is from Nike land aftera all...

[bvar22]

40. Nike Land & the Timber Industry

Oregon is a "Pacific Rim State", and depends on selling timber overseas.

[tennstar]

71. Timber

But nafta sent the mill jobs away, now we ship out logs and buy back lumber

[Angel Martin]

98. Wyden voted for NAFTA as well

the past is prologue with these people

[fredamae]

114. He sure did!

"But trade policy has been a consistent area of disagreement. Wyden has been a supporter of NAFTA-style trade agreements for 20 years, starting with a vote for NAFTA itself in 1993 when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since then, he’s voted for every NAFTA-style trade treaty except agreements with Chile and Singapore in 2003 and Oman in 2006. Labor union leaders hold the agreements responsible for accelerating the offshoring of American manufacturing."
http://nwlaborpress.org/2013/08/back-for-august-recess-u-s-senator-ron-wyden-hears-from-labor/

[INdemo]

100. Who do you think owns most of the North West timber/lumbering companies?

Ans:The Koch Brothers

[fredamae]

115. And GP Mills n/t

[zeemike]

103. You know how insane that sounds?

Well i guess you do.

[fredamae]

119. The Ports along the OR Coast

were Bustling. When a cargo ship came In we celebrated with a cocktail...and when a loaded one left? We celebrated with a cocktail...
Those days are Long, Long Gone.

[countryjake]

123. Exactly! And both Murray & Cantwell voted "Yea" for NAFTA

I don't even feel much like discussing this anymore; it feels too much like deja vu from almost 25 year ago.

All that's left to do now is demonstrate our objections to allowing corporations write the laws. This is what occurs when corporations are given personhood. Working people are the constituents of those Congresspersons who represent us. Corporations are NOT people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6667860

I'm done talking...it's past time to hit the streets, just like back in '92. I may be old and teetering, but I'm still able.
Let Mitch McConnell and his fucking "free" trade senators see who it is that he's supposed to represent!

[Bluenorthwest]

106. And yet Jeff Merkley did not vote for it while both of the Washington Senators did and Wyden.

Wyden is actually a pretty big free trade guy. He voted for CAFTA, for example which Hillary Clinton and most Democrats voted against. He's usually on the side of the trade agreements.

Who are your Senators and how did they vote?

[pscot]

121. Boeing

And Microsoft. Washington is heavily trade dependent.

[Ken Burch]

134. Hopefully, DeFazio will run. n/t.

[Maedhros]

137. Steve Novick was Merkley's opponent in the primary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Novick

He' rock-solid on the issues. I wouldn't mind seeing him give it another go against Wyden.

[Avalux]

29. I thought the same thing before I read your post. n/t

[Enthusiast]

122. Yes it is.

[yeoman6987]

157. I have to say that I was a bit shocked to see the

Senators from Deleware vote for it. I thought they were pretty liberal. I guess I was mistaken.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Ah, the usual suspects. The Third Way/Blue Dog/New Democrat usual suspects.

[rhett o rick]

30. Actually the two senators from Washington the State don't usually vote with

the damn Blue Dogs. I've written them a number of times and they both give me bullshit rhetoric. The best I can get from them is that Washington the State relies on trade and this will help Washington industries. My Democratic rep is singing the same song. Notice they say "industries" which doesn't mean workers. Higher profits for industries doesn't equal higher wages for workers.

The Democratic Party used to look out for workers.

[AtomicKitten]

49. That's a legitimate distinction.

But when they vote with the Blue Dog herd, that distinction gets blurred. The Democratic Party barely resembles the party of RFK, and it's as frustrating as it is heartbreaking. That probably explains why people are moving to support Bernie Sanders. He's one of the few honest, decent pols we have.

[tennstar]

75. Washington

Cantwell is a blue dog from the get go. Murray seems to go further and further to the right the longer she is in office.
Who is your rep? Mine is Heck

[rhett o rick]

113. I thought Sen Cantwell was getting better in the last few years but she does have

corporate ties. When she was first elected the Republicon, I believe it was Spellman got huge donations from Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, etc. and she went in big time debt. After she was elected she got those same corporations to pick up her debt. And she was an early member of the DLC if I remember correctly.

Sadly I agree with you re. Sen Murray.

My rep. is Rep Kilmer. He seems like a decent guy, I have spoken to him a few times, but not real progressive.

[Ken Burch]

138. You're from Olympia?

Still wish Dennis K. had moved there and run for that seat.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

141. He would have lost

[Angel Martin]

101. Cantwell and Murray always

vote for "free trade", going all the way back to NAFTA

[Cali_Democrat]

3. So this vote started the debate

What's wrong with debate?

i thought that's what everyone was asking for.

Let's debate the merits.

[madfloridian]

5. Yes, let's.

Do you think they will talk publicly about what is really in the deal?

I seriously doubt it.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. All debate on the Senate floor is public.

Turn to CSPAN.

[haikugal]

10. Great, when do we get to see the deal, in print, so we can know what's in it?

[Cali_Democrat]

11. "TPA requires the administration make any agreement public for at least 60 days before entering...

...into the pact, several months before it can be submitted to Congress for consideration."

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=0d838f3e-527e-43e0-9ebb-ab01a1e8ecd1

It will be public for at least two months before entering the agreement.

[haikugal]

13. So they had 10 years to hide everything and we have 60 days to read and research...sounds

fair to me...

We'd better get organized so we can mob this thing...put all our heads together.

[fasttense]

55. You get a countdown of 60 days to read 150,000 pages of legalese.

They have had a decade to craft it.

Sure that's fair and honest.

[GoneFishin]

62. Not to mention that is is a done deal anyway once TPA is in place. That's why they pushed so hard

for TPA. It's gives the illusion of choice where there really will be none.

Reading the agreement after TPA is in place is a good as reading it after TPP is in place because you can't do anything about then anyway.

[haikugal]

69. Well if nothing else we'll know how and who is screwing us..

We don't have a representative democracy so we need to say it like it is. As you say, we are owned and subject to much kabuki...hope my ass.

[madfloridian]

21. The whole trade agreement, or just parts.

If it is all going to be open to the public, then why bother to be so secretive now?

Oh, I see, it will only be open to public after it is voted in.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. You're confused

Any trade pact, such as TPP, will have to be made public prior to submission to Congress for consideration.

[GoneFishin]

67. You're confused. You actually believe that TPA is not the end of the story. After TPA it's a done

deal. There will be no stopping it. But then I am sure that doesn't matter to you.

[Cali_Democrat]

86. Any finalized trade agreement will have to be submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote. nt

[TheKentuckian]

146. So what? We don't have the votes to stop a bad deal even if magically every Democrat held.

All the sudden the "pragmatic" and "reality based community" can't count to 51 much less 218 and/or believe a significant number of Congressional TeaPubliKlans are looking out for American workers and the environment.

You folks are being very, very, very dishonest because you have no interest in a debate, you want a dog and pony process that enevitably leads to passage based on the players on the board.

[Cali_Democrat]

148. "We don't have the votes to stop a bad deal"

That's why it's important to GOTV.

Elections have consequences.

For the record, I do want debate. Trade authority is being debated right now and TPP will likely be debated in the future as well.

Debate is as American as apple pie. Don't like debate? Perhaps you could move to Russia.

[TheKentuckian]

165. The debate is a show, where is your list of Republicans that are looking out for workers and

the environment.

You know good and well they have the votes, how fucking stupid strategically is that? What else you want to "debate" in such an environment? Abortion bans? Disbanding the EPA?

Want to have "an open discussion and an up and down vote" on anything else the TeaPubliKlans are drooling to pass?

Russia might not be so bad compared to the hell hole created once you get done with your "debates".

If by chance the deal somehow didn't meet your definitions of good for the country then how is it you are expecting to stuff everything back into and close Pandora's Box?

It is not possible to honestly argue that one wants to have a debate when they force a foregone conclusion regardless of the principle concerns because the control has been ceded to the motherfuckers who not only don't give a shit about the primary concerns but are the ardent enemies of them.

No one has to have a desire for totalitarian government not to be insane. There is no since debating going over the cliff or not when you have already set the dive in motion.

The only way to stop such a thing is for it to be so damn good that the evil asshole reject it for malicious reasons. What the fuck sense is that?


Folks on this particular line of reasoning sound stark raving mad to me but I might be missing something here that maybe someone could climb off their pedestal and explain how a bad deal is stopped in real life application.

Who are these pro worker, pro regulation, pro environment Republicans we can count on to safeguard our jobs and futures???

Why play this absurd game of being coy when logically you have to understand that you are committed. The very reasons such a deal can be terrible policy are left without a break other than in the land of the textbook hypothetical stop the spin or you aren't willful spinning then for the love of all that is good think.

This line of argument is wholly irrational and irresponsible as can be. Total abdication of common sense.

[Agschmid]

47. It's open to the public for 60 days before and up/down vote.

[questionseverything]

24. 18,000 pages in 60 days

with lots of legal jargon to comprehend

what could possible go wrong?

[GoneFishin]

76. You are exactly right, with some added scariousity, which is that they have had 10 years to play out

mock legal and corporate strategic scenarios, and have crafted the precise words which allow themselves to prevail against any challenge they could anticipate in those 10 years.

It's a shady lawyers wet dream to be able to have 10 years to plan all the strategic moves he will make against an adversary, then with that knowledge in mind, craft a contract which binds and commits his adversary using the precise contractual jargon of only his choosing and developed entirely by himself to embed as many well hidden legal land mines, then finally rushing the other party to sign before he can get up to speed about what he is signing.

It's a fucking bullshit cheesy scam.

[Fred Sanders]

118. So now the complaint, now that the agreement is public as intended, is that it is too long to read?? So much

misinformation, so little time to answer the mountain of it.

Guess we better all rely on folks in the know we trust...and I trust Obama.

[Jim Lane]

124. No, the complaint is about imposing an artificial deadline on reading and considering it.

The deal has been in negotiation since 2010. The negotiators have themselves missed several of their own target dates -- they're now well past the time when they hoped to release a final agreement. Yet, for some reason, as soon as they finally come up with something, it then immediately becomes urgent, and must be railroaded through Congress, in an accelerated procedure that's not imposed for any other kind of legislation.

The extent of the reading and analysis required just makes the "fast track" that much more objectionable.

[Fred Sanders]

129. The history of fast track should be researched by folks who fail to grasp the "why".

[Jim Lane]

150. Many of us fear that we do indeed grasp the "why"

If members of Congress, and various NGOs that have expertise in particular areas (environmental organizations, labor unions, EFF, etc.) were given a full and fair opportunity to study and analyze this sprawling proposal, they'd be able to point out even more problems with it, and thereby lessen its chances for approval.

By contrast, if tight deadlines are artificially imposed, there's more chance that the proponents, who've had full access to the negotiations for years now, will be able to railroad it through.

If you put your faith in an alternative rationale, please feel free to articulate it. I've raised this question on DU more than once and never gotten a straight answer. All I ever hear about is the no-amendments part of fast track, not the "fast" part itself.

[questionseverything]

179. current admin refuses to prosecute war criminals

even the ones that raped children in front of their parents to make the parents talk

your trust is misplaced

[haikugal]

15. I agree, they will skim the surface and distract, or try to.

[tennstar]

78. Can't debate

How do you debate something you can't talk about.
Would you debate with your kids if they refused to tell you where the party was they wanted to go to?
They refused to tell you who the adult in charge was going to be?
Oh but they did share with you that the local beer, pot and rum dealers were sponsoring said party.
Would you debate it
Would you let your kid go!

[Cali_Democrat]

82. The title of the article is "Senate votes to start trade debate "

They are debating the trade authority.

If that is passed, any final trade agreement submitted to Congress is also be debated and put to an up-or-down vote.

[madfloridian]

93. Which would give Obama what he wants...he can approve it and congress can't change it..

even though they can vote on it.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. If Congress doesn't like the trade agreement, they can reject it outright through an up-or-down vote

[TheKentuckian]

149. If the Republicans don't like it (which they do) they can reject it out right

What is your argument based on that the fucking Republicans will stop a deal if doesn't protect the environment or workers anywhere, especially here?

Go ahead and post your list of pro labor, environment minded, corporation regulating TeaPublKlans.

[Cali_Democrat]

153. So it's the make up of Congress that you're objecting to.

What are you gonna do about it?

There's only one thing you can do.

Vote.

[TheKentuckian]

177. Why would you force such an issue? Fucking cookoo for Coco Puffs thought process there.

Let's have a good "debate" on say a national voter ID law right now, I mean it is as American as apple pie right?

Should we have a nice "conversation' about a massive tax cut for the rich on an up and down, no logical possibility of a veto?

How about a good "debate' on abortion restrictions or a ban on a path to citizenship all with no possibility of a Presidential veto, you good with that kind of open dialog with a blind up and down vote right about now?

That limb you are out jumping on isn't visible with the naked eye.

I find it about impossible to see this as an argument in good faith, there is no way you believe it or if you somehow do it couldn't be a position arrived at with much contemplation.

Probably the real deal is no matter how horrific you'll retreat to "would you rather Mitt Romney or JEB be negotiating, Obama (insert Clinton for the coming blows) did they best that could be done or some such thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I'm letting my two senators (Cantwell and Murray) know that their votes decide my vote.

I've voted for both of them since we moved to Washington in 1993. Now....?

[Wellstone ruled]

7. And they will use the same worn out

excuse that they fear a Republican will defeat them. Bullshit!

[GeorgeGist]

9. It ain't me babe ...

“Today’s vote moves us closer to achieving a positive outcome for the people we represent,”

[msongs]

16. they represent corporate america, not you, so that statement is actually true nt

[ybbor]

112. That's the statement that I noticed as well

Not the citizens of the U.S. but the people they represent. This may be the only time I believe what yurtle says.

[cali]

14. Ugh. we have to hope that

those opposed to the tpa/tpp, use every delaying tactic in the book. the longer they drag this out the greater the chance to defeat it. Load that baby up with amendments.

[kentuck]

17. When Democrats make up their mind that they are "free traders"...

Nobody can change their minds. They think like Republicans.

[madfloridian]

20. Well said, kentuck.

[world wide wally]

34. I liked Colorado so much better when we were a Democratic state

[kentuck]

52. Me too, Wally...

[Autumn]

142. Yeah, I called Bennet but knew it would do no good.

I won't waste my time calling any of them again.

[Triana]

18. the "people" we represent....

Exxon Mobil
Goldman Sachs
Glaxo Smith-Kline
Koch Industries,

etc...

[NaturalHigh]

22. Primary opponents needed for all of them.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. "assist U.S. workers displaced by foreign competition."

Oh, good. More money gets funneled into our universities to retrain tech workers into the nursing or trucker field.

The country is saved.

[JDPriestly]

26. What a bunch of fools. They don't know what the TPP is about and what it will

do. They have no idea.

But then Dianne Feinstein is pretty much a loser on a lot of issues. On the ultra-right of the "I want money" party.

[geek tragedy]

48. States with more export-driven economies are generally more favorable

to trade legislation.


Note that only two of these Senators--Wyden and DiFi--represents a state where the other Senator voted no.

[octoberlib]

27. The Democratic Party Would Triangulate It's Own Mother

The reality is, as much as the mainstream Democratic Party whines about Fox and its cohorts, they constantly use all the negative energy of the conservative media as free marketing. Instead of standing in true partnership with unions and working people and employing a strategy of forcing the rest of the world to democratize and grant workers real rights in exchange for access to American consumers, they've done the opposite – beating up on the captured labor demographic as a way to reassure big business.

Again, this goes back to Clinton, Al From, Dick Morris, the DLC days. Third Way Dems first dared American workers to try to get a better deal with Republicans. Then, once they established that they could safely take minorities and labor for granted, they used right-wing caricatures of welfare moms or rappers to score points with the political middle.

It's clever, and it sure as hell works as a way to win elections. It just seems like doing the right thing and standing up for actual people would work just as well.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-democratic-party-would-triangulate-its-own-mother-20150514#ixzz3a9BKww5U

[madfloridian]

172. "once they established that they could safely take minorities and labor for granted"

Then they were good to go.

Good point. Taking us for granted.

[underpants]

28. Awww Tim come on!

[Nay]

33. Tim and Warner both! WTF! nt

[Duppers]

108. yes...and I wrote and called both of their offices.

F'n Damn. I thought they might do this.

[appalachiablue]

151. Tim Kaine is a good guy, Warner we know. WTH!?

[uppityperson]

31. I do not understand why this is bad, to debate it. I've not been following each little part, please

tell my why this part is bad as it seems debating it is a good thing.

Pretend I am stupid if you won't believe that I've not been watching news, on DU much recently.

Thank you.

[sendero]

36. With fast track...

... it will get a very short debate and there will be no opportunity to modify it in any way.

In the normal process congress would have had ample time to debate it and amendments would be possible.

Fast track just makes it easier to railroad it through congress with little oversight or accountability. Without fast track this piece of shit legislation would have died.

[uppityperson]

39. OK, that makes sense, thanks

I have not been online much recently, or watching news, been busy dealing with death of my last parent so I appreciate the info.

[dgibby]

73. So sorry for your loss.

Wishing you peace and comfort.

[uppityperson]

79. Thank you, it is odd

and the world goes on around us.

[Marrah_G]

171. ~hugs you~

Sorry my friend

[Agschmid]

46. With fast track how many days would they have to debate?

[sendero]

54. I think there..

... is 90 days of ELAPSED TIME. The amount of actual debate depends on the other items on the schedule and the usual wrangling and manipulation that goes on in congress.

[Agschmid]

57. That's a fine amount of time.

Especially if it's just an up/down vote.

[haikugal]

77. All over summer....and how busy are our representatives really?

They'll do as little as possible and people won't notice because it's summer...

[sendero]

80. The time period ..

..... is not particularly important when no amendments can be made. I expect the "debates" to be perfunctory and the piece of shit bill to pass.

[haikugal]

90. Good point, we never had a chance.

[DCBob]

38. Those opposed to TPP this think this will grease the wheels to approval..

which may be correct but not necessarily. Congress can still shitcan it if they want to.

[TheKentuckian]

159. The news is even with 100% solidarity among Democrats (right) we don't have the votes

to stop a bad deal. If the TeaPublKlans want it then they have it.

[Gamecock Lefty]

32. Maybe, Just Maybe . . .

. . . these 13 Dems are voting with the Prez because they actually support TPP? Just sayin’.

I’ll admit I do not know enough about it to be for or against it, so I’m more of a fence straddler. But I must admit I do like the robust debate within our party.

[sendero]

53. Of course they do..

... they are DINOs and more proof that it is pointless to have them in our party at all, they are just weakening the Democratic brand.

[Phlem]

35. I knew Cantwell was one. She has to go!

Fucking Washington Democrats. Even the Governor Inslee is a sleazy 3rd way politician killing Medical Marijuana so the for profit installations have all the control. Even Pricing.

[tennstar]

96. Seems like Washington

It seems like Washington is a giant hole that sucks the morals right out of people. Inslee is one of the zombies who returns Cantwell was that way from the get go.
Inslee is so far in bed with the shellfish industry who are spraying poison and dumping millions of tones of plastics in Puget sound, as well as destroying our tidelands in south sound which are the nursery for million of creatures including Salmon. Fyi East coasters your oysters are not sprayed!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

143. Uh Huh

Who would you suggest run against her?

[Phlem]

147. Any F*ing non 3rd way Democrat and

I'd like Washington voters to look at your options next election. D's don't mean much anymore.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

180. Washington's a trade dependent state

So Cantwell and Murray's support of TPP is not surprising. Just as Mary Landrieu's support of the oil companies in a state that drills for oil and has a lot of refineries is not surprising. Likewise Chuck Schumer's support of Wall Street since it's in his state.

To call Cantwell and Murray third way Democrats is intellectually lazy.

[Phlem]

182. Washington State is also a big exporter of.....Tech Jobs too!

Last edited Fri May 15, 2015, 06:08 PM - Edit history (4)

Woo hoo.

And to think that the TPP is actually be more benefit than not, is intellectually dishonest.

[Gore1FL]

37. Of course Claire McCaskill (Mo.)

She competes with Roy Blunt to see who can embarrass the state more.

[TBF]

41. They ALL need to go. nt

[Agschmid]

44. Oh they do?

Jeanne Shaheen? Who's seat might easily go to an Republican? Heck maybe even Scott Brown?

Yah she definitely is one of the biggest problems we have.

[TBF]

51. Do you know anything about Shaheen -

perhaps you should get up off the floor and do a little reading:


The only press release Shaheen issued on Jan. 22 was one praising the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 42 years before. Why would she want her constituents to be unaware of her efforts to expedite the delivery of more natural gas to New England, which is the destination for the the New York pipeline?

We can think of a few reasons. This position contradicts the position of environmental activists who want no new pipelines of any kind for any reason. (They also deny that New England even needs more energy.)

Also, Shaheen’s acknowledgement that a) New England desperately needs more fuel, and b) pipelines are safe ways to deliver the fuel we need, undermines her purely political opposition to the Keystone pipeline and her attempt to straddle issue the Kinder Morgan pipeline. - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150202/OPINION01/150209939/0/FRONTPAGE#sthash.ABFYucwL.dpuf


Yes it's important to keep Repugs out of seats - but if our dems vote the same way what have we accomplished?

[Agschmid]

56. Well if it was a republican we wouldn't have a press release...

And still would have a pipeline.

Maybe you should take your blinders off...

[TBF]

64. You completely ignored what I said in order to make an

inaccurate snarky comment. The press release was about Roe v. Wade. NOTHING about the pipeline.

Again, if dems vote the same as repugs what is our purpose here?

You refuse to answer that question. I wonder why.

[Agschmid]

66. I didn't ignore what you said, and I didn't start the snark.

51. Do you know anything about Shaheen -
perhaps you should get up off the floor and do a little reading:

Again...

If we had a republican in office in NH they probably wouldn't have written a press statement about abortion at all, or decried it.

And we would STILL have a pipeline...

Get it?

[TBF]

68. And you still refuse to answer the question:

If a dem votes the same as a repug what is our purpose here? Why have two parties?

[Agschmid]

70. She doesn't vote the same that's the damn answer.

Do you only care about the pipeline because I don't.

[TBF]

83. I care about many issues ~

but your disinterest in whether a pipeline goes through residential areas of New Hampshire is noted.

Here is information for anyone who might be interested: http://nhpipelineawareness.org/

[Agschmid]

85. You seem to care about one.

And one vote makes Shaheen just like a republican to you.

[TBF]

88. I'm just letting folks know about this issue

because it is important. Many issues are important despite your characterizations and attempted character assassinations.

And what democrats do and how they vote is important. It is especially important when they are pandering for pipelines and good with shipping jobs out of the country. YMMV (and obviously does).

[Agschmid]

94. There are lots of important issues, and having a democrat in office is important.

Honestly I am sick of the shit, character assaination? Please... It's called a disagreement. We are both just as guilty, get through it.

[TBF]

104. And I am sick of the shit

From "third way" dems that are nothing more than republicans who don't agree with the tea party on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. So if we're going to be honest here I expect it on both sides.

I expect those of you who don't care about income inequality to own it. Although we do see through it when you don't own it - and that goes straight up to Hillary.

[Agschmid]

109. I am not a republican, and I certainly am not a third way guy.

You don't know jack shit about me, and it's unreasonable to accuse me of being something I'm not.

I am from Mass, I voted Warren into office. Before that I lived in VT where I voted Bernie into office, and my family served in the NH house. So I call bullshit on your smear.

I'm barely part of the middle class, I'm not rolling in the dough and I support a minimum wage increase.

Good try though.

[TBF]

161. Then why in the world would you support TPP -

which is what you're doing when you give these senators a pass? Honestly, we saw a lot of jobs go out the door with NAFTA. I would give some leeway to folks supporting these "trade" agreements if they actually cared what happened to the "collateral damage" (the labor that is laid off & has trouble finding new work) but they don't.

[woo me with science]

125. [phone] Third Way propaganda

doesn't fly anymore.

The stale, manipulative talking points have ZERO credibility anymore.

[font color=red]Reject Third Way apologism and talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

[/font color]

[Agschmid]

135. Jeanne Shaheen... Top 3rd Way Conspirator!

[BainsBane]

136. How about this?

You work to get some progressive Senators elected in Texas?

[TBF]

160. I'm a co-precinct leader down here -

what exactly are YOU doing?

[BainsBane]

163. I've helped get the head of the congressional progressive caucus elected

as well as two senators who voted against Fast Track. I do GOTV activities every single election. In some years I have organized GOTV activities in multiple precincts.

Here's the thing I find annoying. The reason those centrist Dems are so important is because huge swaths of the country, like your state, elects Republicans. You can go on about imperfect Democrats all you want, but right now you are electing Republicans, including at least one Tea Bagger, to the Senate from your state. I don't sit and wag my finger at Democrats who are less progressive than those in my state because I know the rest of the country, NH for example, isn't like MN. Yet people who live in very conservative parts of the country, who manage to elected few to no Democrats, are particularly prone to lecturing everyone else about the Democratic representatives they do elect. My suggestion to you and every other red state Democrat is to clean up your own house. If you want to make the party more progressive, elect progressives, or at least Democrats. If Texas ever does elect a Democrat again, that person will be a lot more like Shaheem than Franken, but that will still be a considerable improvement over Ted Cruz.

[TBF]

164. So I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I happen to

live in a red state? That's your position?

This party really is breaking apart isn't it.

[BainsBane]

166. I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinon

Yet you sit there saying she is just as bad as a Republican because she isn't progressive enough for you, despite the fact your state is a Tea Bagger strong hold. So if you think they are all the same, by all means, work to see Shaheem and other impure Democrats ousted by the GOP. Then the GOP can get over that magic number of 60, but that won't matter anyway since they are all the same. There are so much the same you have to drive for hundreds of miles to get an abortion, while I can hop on city bus to get to a family planning clinic. But I guess that's better than having to face the indignity of a Democratic Senator who doesn't vote how you want 100 percent of the time.

As for this divide in the party, my branch elects progressives, Keith Ellison, Al Franken, and not really progressive but someone who can be influenced, Klobuchar. Yours elects Ted Cruz and John Cornyn; I myself don't think much of that particular branch of the party. Ultimately, however, it is up to Texas residents to choose their Senators, just as it up to NH residents to elect theirs.

[TBF]

168. You are implying that Texas dems are happy about

that or aren't working hard enough. Or that we are electing teabaggers willingly. That is a huge insult to all dems in Texas and the hard work they do. Please proceed - you're doing a wonderful job with your persuasive efforts.

[BainsBane]

176. No, that's not what I'm implying

at all. What I'm saying is that your branch of the Democratic party has gotten no Democrats elected to federal office, at least not in the Senate and very few in the House. You talk about a divide in the party, as though pure thoughts were all that mattered. The Democratic party is a theoretical construct to you. When you get some Democrats elected, then we can talk about this divide and how your Democratic representatives compare to others in the nation. As it stands now, you have no one to show for it. You can pretend to be on the left of the party all you want, but the fact is your representatives are on the far right.

Your assumption that my point was about how Texas Democrats feel couldn't be more wrong. In fact, my point is what matters is what they accomplish.

[TBF]

181. Blaming the victims remains popular I see -

you really aren't going to attract voters to your third-way candidates with that attitude. Smh.

[BainsBane]

185. Third way like Franken and Keith Ellison?

Is that who you are characterizing as Third Way now? Compared to who, your beloved reps? Texas is a perfect place to test your theory. Your party can run some leftist Democrats, and if that's what it takes to win seats, you'll prove your case.
As it stands now, my representatives are progressives and yours Tea Baggers. Blaming the victim? Give me a break, you're a voter and party activist claiming you know the secret to electoral success. Now prove it.

This lazy trope of Third Way every time someone brings up an inconvenient fact is weak and absurd given who my candidates actually are. You sit there preaching at the rest of the country while electing Tea Baggers. Put up someone to the left of Keith Ellison for Senate in Texas. Keith's a Muslim, a Third Wayer, in your estimation. Franken a Third Way sell out. So please, show the rest of the country how it's done.

You proved my point about the party being a theoretical construct to you. You haven't elected a single Democrat to the federal government but feel entitled to lectures voters all over the nation about how they aren't pure enough. How absolutely absurd.

That is what is so absurd about political discussion on this site. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality. You think you're some progressive wing of the party when you elect Tea Baggers, and you turn your nose up at "my Third Way candidates" who rank at the leftist scale in any accounting of ideological leaning of candidates.
?w=240&h=328

[Agschmid]

42. *Shaheen.

Shoddy work...

[n2doc]

43. Well, that's the core of the "democratic" wing of the Corporate Party.

Surprised Manchin wasn't on the list.

DiFi can't retire soon enough for me.

[Angel Martin]

110. Manchin has always voted

against these stupid trade deals

[CharlotteVale]

45. Yep, my two fake Democratic Senators are there.

[SoapBox]

50. DiFi...of course!

She has GOT to go California!

[GoneFishin]

61. Yep. She really needs to fucking go.

[GoneFishin]

58. The usual prostitutes.

[Purveyor]

84. Quit insulting prostitutes, at least they make an honest living... eom

[GoneFishin]

178. Yeah. And it's no surprise when you get screwed.

[woo me with science]

59. Rotating villains.

If it weren't this 13, it would have been another 13.

We have seen this con game now for years. The system is deeply and pervasively corrupt. Corporate money pouring into Washington to buy soulless, morally bankrupt predators to pretend to be our "representatives."

They and those who shill for them have sacrificed all claim to human decency or conscience. They are the "hollow men" of our generation. It takes a special kind of moral vacancy to participate in this sellout of democracy and human lives and futures, for the filthy paychecks they receive. There is no honor, none, in these con artists or their shills.

Enough is enough.

The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:
....
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

What a familiar, predictable, manipulative, and vicious con game by corporate Democrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6668324


The initial vote was for show. For PR. What Americans heard was that Democrats stood up against this monstrosity.

Then they reverse course, conveniently. AFTER the accolades.

Just like Obama's lying, highly publicized speech pretending that he would rein in military involvement....

...followed immediately by two new wars in Syria and Iraq, funding carpet-bombing of captive populations in Gaza, and a trillion-dollar escalation in nuclear weapons.

Our corrupt Third Way Democrats are corporate liars, puppets for the One Percent as surely as are corporate Republicans. In this oligarchy, this fake democracy, we are ruled by lying propagandists and corporate criminals, who brazenly and deliberately advertise one agenda and pursue another.

Enough corporate corruption. Enough.

[haikugal]

89. ^^^This^^^

[kentuck]

99. But always just enough...

to win the votes for their friends in big business.

[zeemike]

111. Nailed it.

[Angel Martin]

116. rotating villains is the reality

for both parties.

politicians with a tough re-election coming up, they get to vote populist.

the others, they have to vote corporate.

then for the next election cycle, they shuffle the assignments.

And a new group of politicians get to play populist, and rest have to vote corporate.

[840high]

167. Thank you.

[TBF]

169. Thank you. K&R nt

[Utopian Leftist]

63. Sigh, really California?

Dianne Feinstein is the best we can do? Really? In such a liberal state?

[randys1]

81. Feinstein, of course

[Dont call me Shirley]

87. Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, Citibank, Boeing, Xi.............

"Today’s vote moves us closer to achieving a positive outcome for the people we represent,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

[turbinetree]

92. WE HAVE

not seen one word on this legislation.
That should be the first item up for discussion a
AMENDMENT that says the public can read this piece of a DEAL-----how about that-----I think we deserve to be in the loop

[Ed Suspicious]

97. Much better than republicans because . . . I'm not sure. They seem like a liability to the party

according to my eyes. Now dems are culpable for moving along this disaster. (Although I thought Wyden was supposed to be one of the good guys.)

[emsimon33]

102. I seriously hope there is a challenge to all 13

We need to get rid of the neo-liberal, 3rd wayers.

They are farther to the right than Republicans were 30 years ago.

I really want to see the two from Virginia ousted. We might as well have Republicans than these 13 traders.

[peacebird]

107. Crap, I expected Warner, but Kaine too?

[bluestateguy]

117. I would have done the same thing. I don't do filibusters.

I'd have voted yes to open debate, yes for cloture and no on the actual TPP deal.

[LittleBlue]

126. Murray and Cantwell are traitors and will never receive my vote again

If they're so dedicated to promoting corporatist trade deals, let them get votes from the corporatists.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

145. So you're voting Republican next time?

Or simply not voting?

[LittleBlue]

155. The second

They obviously feel my vote wasn't important. I let them know earlier this year that I wouldn't vote for them if they supported this. They made their choice. Let them get votes from the lobbyists who paid them. Or the Chinese. It won't be me

[liberal_at_heart]

184. They're not getting my vote either.

[99Forever]

127. Democrats you say?

That's definitely a matter of opinion.

[chillfactor]

128. seems to be that...

a debate is what we want...I view that as a good thing...

[DonCoquixote]

130. uuuuyggghh

especiall;y Bill Nelson. Dammit Bill, do you not udnerstand that the GOP is moving to hand your job to Rick Scott?

[DonCoquixote]

131. I would call them Dinos

but they are really Quislings.

[sulphurdunn]

132. Congress is like a predictabe and embarrasingly bad

soap opera that keeps showing the same reruns.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

133. No surprises in that list. nt

[Octafish]

139. An eclectic mix, looking out for a trade bill that promises so much to so few.

Thanks for the heads-up, madfloridianita. Perhaps down the road they'll get all that they deserve.

[mike_c]

140. Diane good-for-nothing Feinstein, dammit!

AAARRGGGHHHHHH

[City Lights]

144. Thanks for naming names! nt

[cantbeserious]

152. Sell Outs To The 1% - One And All

eom

[TBF]

162. I agree - although I was killed for saying so.

That is what happens when you try to stand up to the third-way. But we know their game & know they are really little more than republicans in disguise.

[dreamnightwind]

170. Thank you for your posts in this thread

Much appreciated.

Feinstein and Boxer are my Senators. I contacted them, their votes were predictable (Boxer voted no). I've contacted Feinstein many times over the years (well actually her staff of course), always got the feeling that they coudn't care less. The state party has her back, as does the MIC, so she remains in power. I've never met anyone that said they like her representing them. Her constituents are the large campaign donors, not the voters.

[still_one]

154. Ron weyden and Patty Murray? Isn't that a surprise?

[Hoyt]

156. Good to see some folks doing what's right for country, even if some constituents

are stuck in flat earth mode on this one.

Now let's see if House will get moving so Obama can see if he can finalize a good agreement, or have to say he tried but it didn't work.

[Trajan]

158. It's not like trade didn't exist before TPP ...

The bill isn't necessary ... Boeing and NIKE are both making oodles and oodles of cash in the current environment ... Yet they need more and more, and want the rest of us to simply receive less in wages and benefits so they can get that too ...

And those on this thread who praise the TPP and ridicule the rest of us ...

We know who you are here in DU .. If this leads to MORE job loss ... MORE displacement of families ... MORE growth of the poor classes and another reduction in middle class wealth ...

Expect us to discuss it with you here ... And let you know how we feel about your thinking and your ability to prognosticate .... You apparently believe that trickle down is the way to go ... Well, we will see about that, won't we?

[SMC22307]

173. Is it going to come down to hoping Japan and Malaysia bow out...

because of currency manipulation?

Senate, in Reversal, Begins Debate on Trade Authority
....

The Senate voted 78-20 on a broad trade enforcement bill that included a crackdown on countries that manipulate their currency. The currency provision would require the Commerce Department to investigate claims by American companies that competitor nations are manipulating their currency to promote their own industries. And if manipulation is found, the government would have to impose tariffs to raise the cost of imports to compensate for the currency price imbalance.


....

Even supporters said that vote was intended more to allow lawmakers to express their frustration on the currency issue. The real showdown will be over the Portman-Stabenow amendment attached to the trade promotion authority itself. If that reached Mr. Obama’s desk, supporters say, the president would have to sign it.

....

The trade enforcement legislation includes the creation of an interagency trade enforcement center and a system to respond faster to unfair trade practices, like the dumping of exports at prices below the cost of production. Another provision would require the Customs and Border Protection agency to expeditiously investigate allegations of customs duty evasion. Still another would close a 75-year-old loophole that allows the importation of goods produced with child labor if a company cannot find those goods elsewhere.

....

The Obama administration is walking a tightrope. Congress could give Mr. Obama the authority he needs to conclude a Pacific trade agreement that he sees as a central element to enhance the administration’s strategic role in Asia. But officials say that the demands imposed by Congress could scare off key partners such as Japan and Malaysia just as the deal comes into reach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/business/senate-vote-currency-manipulation-fast-track-trade.html?_r=0

[madfloridian]

174. From Salon. TPA and secrecy. Only after Obama gets fast track will it be open supposedly.

9. SECRET DEAL: Obama has angrily dismissed the notion that TPP is a “secret” deal, saying that everyone will have public access to the TPP text for at least 60 days before a final vote. This is not the point opponents are making. The vote on fast track would severely limit Congressional input into the deal. And right now, members of Congress can only see the text in a secure room, without being able to bring staffers or take notes, or even talk about specifics in public. That makes the deal effectively secret during the fast track vote. “The president has only committed to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track,” Warren told Greg Sargent. The President wants to filibuster-proof the bill in secret, then employ pretend transparency on TPP after that.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/

Another good point:

5. CHANGING LAWS: On the controversial topic of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), where corporations can sue sovereign governments for monetary damages for violating trade agreements that hurt the company’s “expected future profits,” the White House has engaged in a shell game. They say, “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.” But the point of a corporation suing the United States or any trade partner is to put enough financial pressure on a government to force them to alter the law themselves. So ISDS doesn’t “cause” a change in law only in the narrowest sense. Even third-party countries have curtailed regulations in reaction to ISDS rulings, as New Zealand did with their cigarette packaging law, awaiting the outcome of a dispute between the tobacco industry and Australia (a suit that continues despite an initial victory for Australia).

[madfloridian]

175. Don't miss nadin's post about privatization of post office and TPP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026675198

[liberal_at_heart]

183. Cantwell and Murray. Damn. That is disappointing. Just what kind of assistance is going to help our

workers when their jobs are sent oversees and the wages for the jobs we do have left keep declining? And minimal interference from Congress? Congress represents the people(well they are suppose to anyway). When you cut Congress out of the negotiating process you are cutting the people out of the democratic process. I will not be voting for Cantwell or Murray when their re-elections come around. I've never really liked Cantwell anyway. I kind of like Murray, but I think she votes to spend too much money on the defense budget. Maybe we would have more money for education and other important domestic programs if we didn't spend so much damn money on defense.