Mr. Obama began [Friday] by paying a rare, unannounced visit to Capitol Hill for an emergency closed-door pep rally with House Democrats, which was in retrospect a bad omen. His talk was reportedly well received at first but then he advised the caucus that “a vote against trade is a vote against me,” while Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon noted that the President “tried to guilt people and impugn their integrity.” In other words, it was a vintage Obama performance.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had until Friday promised the White House she’d remain neutral. But after the meeting she took to the floor to deliver a rambling speech that sounded off-the-cuff and encouraged Democrats to vote against a program called Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. To understand how remarkable this surprise attack was, imagine Pearl Harbor as an inside job....
१३ जून, २०१५
"Pelosi Knifes Obama."
Headline at The Wall Street Journal. (Google some text to get a link to enter as a nonsubscriber.)
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
It's always about him.
Did she use the knife that's been responsible for her facelifts? Nancy is all about face.
I don't understand the 'Obama in trouble' tag. Obama is not up for reelection whereas most of the other Dems are. These moves make the Republicans the party of out sourcing and the Dems the defender of the working man. How could this have gone any better?
Poor, poor Obama. Hope someone was around to give him a hug.
There is no need to insult the Japanese Navy. The USA needs a trade agreement because we are an importer nation. Wishing we were a major exporter again, is like wishing for a balanced budget. The only thing the USA exports now is war, and war material.
I find that sort of hot rhetoric unhelpful.
Tragedy of the Commons.
Nancy's finest hour.
Obama wants to create a revolution in the USA by making every good American way that succeeds in economics and in military strength and world Alliances be set up to crash and burn from division and unreality.
Pelosi said no to a final particular act of destruction. Therefore, she knifed him to ressurrect some credibility for Democrats post Obama .
Reasonable man may be correct on party politics. But one of few times Obama wants to step away from partisans for perceived good of country and is knifed by his own party is not good generally for him or democrats. Shows they can't really govern.
Also, our pathetic press corps loves political intrigue and backstabbing. Funny how Obama reverting to himself finally turned off democrats.
It's always about what is good for Obama. He's a very poor loser and a guilt tripping straw man destroyer. It's about time the (D)'s noticed what an ass he is when crossed...
I have another reason to deeply dislike Obama and his policies, I now have a reason to respect Nancy Pelosi. I'm not sure I can ever forgive Obama for that one.
No one trusts Obama.
Coupe said...
There is no need to insult the Japanese Navy. The USA needs a trade agreement because we are an importer nation. Wishing we were a major exporter again, is like wishing for a balanced budget. The only thing the USA exports now is war, and war material.
Yeah, the Japanese actually tried to declare war just prior to the attack, but could not decode the huge message in time to deliver it.
We do export crops, airplanes, software, books, films, and other IP.
Obama is really angry now. He didn't come through for his campaign donors and now his post-presidency speaking income has been radically cut.
Any kind of "free trade" is against Obama's religion, so there is reason (for Repuclicans) to be suspicious of this. There just has to be something really bad hidden somewhere in the language of the bill.
ARM: I don't understand the 'Obama in trouble' tag. Obama is not up for reelection whereas most of the other Dems are. These moves make the Republicans the party of out sourcing and the Dems the defender of the working man. How could this have gone any better?
I'm actually agreeing with ARM this morning. (Is that The Twilight Zone theme I hear playing somewhere in the distance?) Obama is looking to his future - a lucrative career to be provided by the class of people pushing the TPP.
So is everybody in Congress, including the people who voted down the TPP. That's why I fear this bill isn't going to stay dead for long.
AReasonableMan said...
I don't understand the 'Obama in trouble' tag. Obama is not up for reelection whereas most of the other Dems are. These moves make the Republicans the party of out sourcing and the Dems the defender of the working man. How could this have gone any better?
I'd say it could have gone better if they ended up supporting policies that help America, but that's just me.
Love the admission that he judges policies entirely on the political consequences. It amusingly mocks the self-claimed "Reasonable" descriptor.
Oh, the Repubs will find a way to pass this. Though I have tosay it was fun reading how Dems felt the Prez was "lecturing them" and "talking down to us". It's the old "I am smarter than anyone" thing coming out and hell and be damned relationship building (even within your party) . "If I speak, you must obey"!
Obama did a poor job explaining to the public why this bill is important, and how it would help the economy.
A large number of Dems think NAFTA was a bum deal that hurt our manufacturing base. A large Dem constituency (Big Labor) actively opposed the bill.
I think Pelosi simply doesn't buy these sweeping free trade bills, but agreed to play ball with Obama or perhaps felt the pressure to play ball, Regardless, Obama thought he was powerful enough to ram it through with a sufficient number of pliant Dems, but apparently they fought back, reminded him of his Lame Duck status, and held the line
Jeez, why do bad things always seem to happen to *him*?
I knew (and tweeted) that fast track was dead when Speaker Boehner expressed his confidence in it earlier in the week.
P.S. All I hear, is a Giant Sucking Sound
Damn, metaphorically. I was thinking two birds, one stone...
It seems that I remember the U.S. had a trade agreement in place with Japan in the early 1940's. We sent them oil and scrap steel, they provided us with their excess aggression and sabre-rattling rhetoric.
When the U.S. cut off deliveries of oil and scrap steel, the Japanese decided to return some of that scrap steel, FOB Pearl Harbor.
It's like the GOP is working on a modern-day Manhattan Project with the secrecy surrounding this trade deal, except, I fear, this time we will be dropping The Bomb on ourselves.
@ARM The Dems destroyed the portion of the bill that was FOR the "working man" - with help from the R's. I think there is a lot of "inside baseball" in these moves. I also think the R's have done their best and should let the whole thing die. Why help a guy who has been calling you a shit for 6 years?
Can anyone tell me why the trade deal is good for ordinary Americans? Or why the status quo is bad?
Coupe said...
"There is no need to insult the Japanese Navy. The USA needs a trade agreement because we are an importer nation. Wishing we were a major exporter again, is like wishing for a balanced budget. The only thing the USA exports now is war, and war material."
You're a moron.
" But one of few times Obama wants to step away from partisans for perceived good of country....."
There is nothing in his past behavior that has ever indicated he's done anything for the good of the country. This time is no different.
"I don't understand the 'Obama in trouble' tag. Obama is not up for reelection whereas most of the other Dems are. These moves make the Republicans the party of out sourcing and the Dems the defender of the working man. How could this have gone any better?"
The "Obama's in trouble" tag goes back a long way. It's intended to be read like a line in the old TV show "Lassie." Lassie runs in barking urgently. The human translator says something like: "X is in trouble! We need to help!"
That's something Meade and I were in the habit of saying in the early days of the Obama era. It was like we were inside of this script -- a script we were satirizing -- where everyone loved and cared about Obama and if anything went wrong for him, we'd all scramble to help him.
You can see that Obama himself believes in that script in the linked article, where it says "he advised the caucus that “a vote against trade is a vote against me,” while Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon noted that the President “tried to guilt people and impugn their integrity.”" It's important that Obama succeed. He's the hero of this story and it must come out well.
That's what the "Obama's in trouble" tag means. Read it in a satirical tone and picture it continuing "Obama's in trouble... we need to help!"
Cynicus said...Can anyone tell me why the trade deal is good for ordinary Americans? Or why the status quo is bad?
This Bill basically expands an important welfare program for people who's jobs have been exported.
It is actually in the Democrats interest to pass it, and they will. It's not over yet.
"...Specifically, the bill allows service sector workers and public sector
workers to receive benefits if they lose their jobs due to trade. Only manufacturing sector workers, fisherman, and farmers are currently eligible for the program. The bill also reinstates eligibility for workers affected by trade with any trading partner, not just countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement."
The Republicans would do well to separate the issues of free trade and trusting Obama to negotiate the deal.
"How could this have gone any better?"
The only way is if Boehner had not left the door open for another vote.
Republicans actually voted for TPA, which helps the economy, and against TAA, which the Democrats should favor as a welfare program but they voted down.
I agree with you.
The real problem here is not Pelosi, it's Obama. He doesn't do the leadership thing well, why? because he's not a leader, never has been, never gonna be.
I wonder if Obama felt like Nicolae Ceaușescu up there. I'll never forget the look on Ceaușescu's face during his final speech when the crowd finally turned on him after years of dictatorial abuse. The look of utter shock was a wonder to behold. It was all downhill for Ceaușescu after that. Whither Obama?
Obama made a big showy pitch to an audience that was never going to be receptive. And he did it at the very last minute. An effective president would have been building these relationships carefully over time. A wise president would not make a huge show of a political fight he could not win. And only an arrogant president would think a last minute speech would win the day.
Or perhaps he is playing a deeper game. He knew he would lose and he wanted to make a big show of his loss. Why would he do that? There could be a reason, but one does not come to my mind right now.
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal tried to explain the trade bills in yesterday's column "Trade Secrets?" I would say that if Paul Ryan wants to get the bill passed he needs to quit playing an inside game and explain it all to the American people. If it really does sound good to use riff-raff taxpaying scum and doesn't require us to trust Obama too far, then, heck yes, I'll contact my Congresswoman and express my support. But the notion that we should trust him as a Republican any more than we trust Democrats is silly on the face of it.
Anglelyne said...
I'm actually agreeing with ARM this morning.
You know you want to.
Anglelyne said...
Obama is looking to his future - a lucrative career to be provided by the class of people pushing the TPP.
So is everybody in Congress, including the people who voted down the TPP. That's why I fear this bill isn't going to stay dead for long.
And, I largely agree with this, although the Dems will retain some plausible deniability through these maneuvers.
PS - Are any of you Althouse commenters from the Wisconsin 1st Congressional District? You can Email the Honorable Paul Ryan but his web site does not accept Emails from outside his district.
"“tried to guilt people and impugn their integrity.” In other words, it was a vintage Obama performance."
Indeed.
He should have known it was pointless, since Dems don't feel guilt and have no integrity.
"He knew he would lose and he wanted to make a big show of his loss. Why would he do that? There could be a reason"
Just speculating: he took the loss as a signal to GOP: "I'm serious about this and won't stab you in the back if you stand with me."
Are the democrats now the "party of race hate"? How could they dis our First Black President and not be RACIST? I think Mochelle should immediately put herself on the road to running for Pressi.
Any trade bill that needs to be kept secret and needs a companion bill to help people who lose their jobs because of it probably isn't a good bill, but I'm just guessing because I haven't read it.
khesan0802: The Dems destroyed the portion of the bill that was FOR the "working man" - with help from the R's. I think there is a lot of "inside baseball" in these moves.
Allow me to rephrase that. The Dems destroyed the portion of the bill that was "for" the working man.
TAA bills are a meaningless sop.
why would any sane person give Obama the power to negotiate. The only thing Obama is capable of doing is giving away a position of power for nothing in return.
Berghal speaks for itself.
Cuba? Obama had the power to negotiate improved circumstances for the people of Cuba. He did nothing. Resumed relationship with Cuba and got NOTHING for the people of Cuba. And of course nothing for America.
Cuba had the power to trade with the rest of the world to improve the livelyhood of the Cuban people. So adding America to the rest of the world as a trading partner was not an answer for the people of Cuba.
Obama is intent on giving away any advantage the US has, as a way to pay for what he considers the sins of the USA.
I'm astounded that Pelosi actually backed Labor instead of her fellow millionaires/Billionaires.
What is the AFL-CIO going to do in 2016? Hillary is even more in the pocket of Wall Street than Obama. She'll probably resubmit these trade deals in 2017.
Obama is in trouble. The MSM's usual narrative for a Repub POTUS is "What is this awful man doing the country?"
When a Democrat is POTUS, per the MSM, we're supposed to be on his side, being sad when the country doesn't support him and happy when he succeeds and is high in the polls.
The worst thing about Obama is that in 2017 he will become the official voice of black America. He will be on TV constantly lecturing us on race and giving speeches around the USA at $1 million a pop. However, I doubt that Foreigners will give him $Millions$ to lobby like they did with the Clintons. I get the impression that no one in Congress really likes him.
"Cuba? Obama had the power to negotiate improved circumstances for the people of Cuba. He did nothing. Resumed relationship with Cuba and got NOTHING for the people of Cuba. And of course nothing for America."
Its amazing that liberals keep lying about Castro's Cuba and the embargo. They've been doing it for 40 years and can't seem to stop. I can remember when Dan Rather - the big reporter man - used to call Dictator Castro "President Castro" like the Communist thug was ever elected by anyone.
It may not be over
MountainMan said..."It's always about him."
This x 1000. For every second of his life.
This episode is more delicious than the candidates Obama actually campaigned for but still lost.
Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that free trade is a good thing. But if Obama says he wants to negotiate a "free trade" deal, I keep hearing "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
If I were the Republican leadership in Congress I'd stop being "responsible" and let Obama and his Congressional enablers twist slowly in the wind. Come early 2017, a Republican President can make a good deal with a Republican Congress for fast track authority for a good free trade deal.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा