I have the book in my Kindle, so let me do a search:
So we worked hard to improve and ratify trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and encouraged Canada and the group of countries that became known as the Pacific Alliance— Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile— all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the trans-Pacific trade agreement....It "won’t be perfect," but perhaps the imperfections mounted after her involvement ended. I see a loophole she might be able to exploit.
As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish “a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement” that “is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets.” It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field.
And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia. Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then-Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement.
It’s safe to say that the TPP won’t be perfect— no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be— but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers....
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
The woman is shameless and devoid of principles - other than the will to power.
I never had sex with that Treaty.
I was for it before I was against it!
Where have I heard that before?
It depends on what the meanings of "for" and "against" are.
I am presently reading Pat Buchanan's The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat ... and couldn't help thinking of:
It was early '68 and Alan [Greenspan] had written a speech for Nixon on farm policy that had fallen into the hands of Senators Karl Mundt of South Dakota ... and Milt Young of North Dakota. And all hell had broken loose on the prairies. ... Mundt was calling Greenspan's speech "Bensonism at its worst," a reference to Ezra Taft Benson, Ike's agriculture secretary, who was not beloved in the farm belt, as he had believed that farm subsidies and price supports were socialistic. Nixon told me to fix it. I wrote a new speech calling for the preservation and extension of existing farm programs, and on a trip to DC took the text to Mundt's office. The speech said exactly what Mundt had wanted to hear ... Senator Mundt smiled, said it was beautiful, and that I was a fine young man. As Nixon had said, "We have to talk in terms of principle," but "we may have to do what is pragmatic." (p. 118)
So, HRC's running against her husband's record from the 90's. She's just added running against parts of Obama's record that she helped craft. Does this woman think she's running on the Democratic Party's new Year Zero Platform? Clearly so.
As Insty points out, this is just going to alienate a good chunk of Obama's supporters (including the moneymen) now that she's stabbed him in the back, and for who? The socialist left of the Democratic Party, who see her as a tool of Wall Street? Riiiiight. Sander's supporters will never willingly support her.
"I see a loophole she might be able to exploit."
Yes, Hillary! is all about finding loopholes to exploit.
Hillary lies.
I tuned into "Democracy Now!" the other evening and the left are totally against TPP.
It was amazing how they wouldn't even mention Obama's name. They also made endless excuses for Hillary. They were certain they could pressure her to change her mind.
I really wonder about that 10% of Americans who still consider her honest and trustworthy.
And on the "pragmatic" front, what a stupid strategy Hillary is using here--disowning her husband's centrist legacy and the bulk of Obama's record, even where she was directly responsible for that record! Who on earth would think that the swampies who are in Sanders' corner right now would fall for this and get in line behind Hillary? The only smart move for her would have been to stay close to the middle, claim that she's being "principled" and wait out the primaries--Sanders was not about to win over the center-left of the party, and Hillary would be well positioned to make a play for the moderates in the general (probably helped by whatever boneheaded thing the GOP does next year). Trying to be an ersatz Liz Warren will only alienate moderates and leave leftists wondering what she would actually do in power.
Not a problem. She can swing back in the other direction, and quote herself from the book. The same people will still vote for her.
Its not that she does this-flip flopping, lying, etc.- its whether enough people will care. There are people who despise HRC but would vote for her in a second over any republican. We already know much of the MSM will support her campaign.
So, she's a terrible negotiator. Got it.
She is running on a record that she is actively reputing as being bad. Solid plan.
Only lawyers, politicians, and professors would look at the state of the world today, note the growing anger, and think...
'Aha! A linguistic loophole, that's what's going to save us!'
I bet you there were French aristocrats who saw the mob coming and came up with the bright idea of pointing out to the peasants, that "Technically..."
How can she be on both sides at the same time so everyone will like her?
Blogger AllenS said...
Not a problem. She can swing back in the other direction, and quote herself from the book. The same people will still vote for her.
10/8/15, 12:06 PM
----------------------------
Thread winner.
45 times.
@Althouse, perhaps Hillary can show us which features of the TPP were negotiated during her term as Secretary of State (and therefore she presumably approves of them), which were negotiated between 2012 and 2014 that she approves of, and which were negotiated between when the final galleys of her novel were submitted and today, and presumably she doesn't much like.
Otherwise she's just trying to have it both ways, no matter what sort of loophole you and she may find.
@Althouse, that's she's ever read it.
"I see a loophole she might be able to exploit"
You are so sweet and trusting sometimes, always assuming other people might be inclined to act in good faith, seeking good reasons for good actions.
As if she needs a "loophole." As if she needs a reason of any substance to oppose something that might hurt her election chances. As if anything more than the lust for power matters to the Clintons.
This woman will do anything that damn well suits her. Matt Yglesias has just told us that is exactly the way the Left likes it. From a Prog standpoint, she's right and he's right.
That brief excerpt was truly stultifying. It's amazing that she was able to inflict such boredom in such few words. Does anyone know anyone who has read her entire book--save for those poor souls who do oppo research. Writing about trade agreements is inherently boring, but she takes it to a whole new level of torpor.
This is precisely the sort of courageous political stance one would expect of a politician who braved machine gun fire in Bosnia.
AllenS said...
Not a problem. She can swing back in the other direction, and quote herself from the book. The same people will still vote for her.
"We have always been at war with East Asia!"
To believe otherwise is double plus ungood and thoughtcrime.
I'll bet Sydney Blumenthal is happy he included that key caveat in Hillary's book!
So the only way Hillary can be held to account for this Mother Of All Flip Flops is if she originally claimed the TPP was, in fact, absolutely and utterly perfect in substance, in style and in execution?
Man. Must be nice to be a Democrat. Just having once admitted to being human qualifies as a loophole.
The famous line by Vladimir Lenin was to always analyze who does what to whom to decide which side you should be on.
Bernie lets you know he is on the side of American job holders, as does Trump and Liz Warren.
But Clinton Inc. is always on the side of the biggest donors on Wall Street they can service. Those guys only want more Pacific Rim cheap labor jobs while American workers wither away and die.
So HilLIERy adjusts with a straddle position according to the which LIE is needed at the moment. No wonder all she touches has to be kept a total secret forever. The Internet memory has made the Clinton Scams old fashioned.
Hillary Clinton inserted that loophole into the book really in case there was no agreement. I don't think she anticipated opposing it.
Citizen: Well, Mr. President, it’s the bees and spiders again! They stole my food stamps, and sold ’em to the rats. And I tried to get down to my car, for to honk the horn for help, but the snakes has gotten it for the cockroaches. I go back upstairs, but the spiders has jammed the police lock! I ain’t been inside for a week, and I know that my wife is sleepin’ with the bees!
President: Could you state that as a question, please?
Citizen: Well sure, Mr. President! Where can I get a job?!
President: Many busy executives ask me: What about the job displacement market in the city of the future? Well, count on us—”Jim!”—to be there! Because if we’re successful tomorrow—we won’t have to answer questions like yours, ever again.
Firesign Theater, "I Think We’re All Bozos on This Bus", 1971.
Looks like you're missing a "things not believed" tag--either for her repeated support in the past or for her vocal opposition now.
Why is this woman not in prison?
Question #1: How much of the TPP has she even read?
Question #2: Don't you think she looks tired?
She cannot be parodied.
Hillary is so, what's the word?...authentic.
Yeah, she'll oppose it till the primary is over. The Democrat establishment is just like the Republican establishment - they are both bought and paid for by wall street. The Repubs will say "Just build the Dang fence" during the primaries then go back to supporting open borders. The Democrats always oppose trade deals which screw over American workers - during the primaries - then go back to supporting them after Election day.
"perhaps the imperfections mounted after her involvement ended. I see a loophole she might be able to exploit. "
That sounds like the contortions Romney went through to defend Romneycare while attacking Obamacare, even though Jonathan Gruber said publicly that the latter had been inspired by the former. (As can be seen by comparing the two systems)
Hilary downs't need loopholes. She will just lie. Again.
Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail?
Hillar...iously.
That is all.
Mark this post as Exhibit #84 to show why all you rubes should have known when Mrs. Althouse does her horribly predictable, "Why I'm voting for Hillary" post. It will be in about a year from now.
SomeoneHasToSayIt: "Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail?"
Fen's Law, as much as anything else.
She's feeling the Been.
Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail?
Leverage.
"I see a loophole she might be able to exploit."
After all, Hillary is the one camel that was able to thread that eye of the needle. Why not this as well.
Those that are paying attention at all (over the past 30 years) know Hillary is a liar of the highest degree. Sadly for a very large portion of the population it does not matter.
She doesn't need your "loophole" professor. But I'm sure she appreciates the effort.
So, Hillary is saying that every fuckup she has done is actually a reason to vote for her.
Does not matter if she was right or wrong, negligent or on the ball, it was a success.
Paul: "So, Hillary is saying that every fuckup she has done is actually a reason to vote for her."
Well, that's certainly what some of the young cutups at Vox are saying.
"She's feeling the Been."
Yes, that should be "Bern"
She's not yet a (has) been.
Hillary 2016
Lady Parts and Loop Holes
"That sounds like the contortions Romney went through to defend Romneycare while attacking Obamacare, even though Jonathan Gruber said publicly that the latter had been inspired by the former." Is that supposed to make sense? Romney was bound never to disagree with any bill that bears a resemblance to one that he supported? Because Gruber says so. Maybe there are important and even obvious differences, which he pointed out?
We are discussing here the _same treaty_ that Clinton helped craft, and boasted about her role in it.
Althouse is voting for Hillary, despite the obvious problems with her candidacy, her past history, her future plans, and her present odiousness. And then will be surprised after three, maybe two years, of Hillary's horrible reign that she voted for someone with so many obvious flaws.
Has anyone seen Clinton and althouse together?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा