The editors of the Wall Street Journal are apoplectic over the House’s denial of “fast track” trade negotations authority to President Obama which would allow him to proceed more quickly in his negotiations with the 12 nation Trans-Pacific Partnership:
Thus fast track isn’t dead yet, but no one should think Friday’s fiasco is a mere “procedural snafu,†as White House spokesman Josh Earnest put it with his typically oblivious aplomb. U.S. stocks sold off on the trade defeat, with the Dow dropping 141 points or 0.8%. Failure on fast track would probably doom the 12-nation Pacific trade talks, which would undermine the economic reforms of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and send a strategic gift basket to China’s Xi Jinping. It would also vandalize the U.S. businesses that are losing overseas markets to foreign competitors.
If House Democrats really want to take political responsibility for this damage to appease the labor lobby and progressive fringe, that is their right. But then spare us the hot takes about how “Washington is broken†and that ideological Republicans are to blame. The adults in the GOP managed to fend off the talk radio and online smear campaign that by the end was simply making up fake reasons to oppose “Obamatrade.†They had to rise above what has become a trade version of a Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka and Mike Huckabee.
As suggested in the quote above, some believe that lack of fast track authority dooms the three initiatives the Ohama Administration is negotiating with the TPP. Maybe, maybe not. Next week the president may get fast track authority and all of this week’s kerfuffle will have been forgotten.
To my mind it does raise a question. Let’s take a poll.
Who’s the head of the Democratic Party now?
- Nancy Pelosi
- Harry Reid
- Hillary Clinton
- It’s still Obama. This is just a speed bump.
- Richard Trumka
- Other
- No one
Whatever it’s merits or lack thereof, this opposition bubbled up district by district. The answer is A.
It is good to see the strong stance by Hillary Clinton on the issues of the day.
You left out three options for leadership of the party:
Boehner
Ryan
Soros
This is just an argument about spoils. Once the Dems get a bigger piece for themselves, they’ll fuck over the American public (on this issue) just as the Republicans have.
Boehner and Ryan are having a hard enough time holding reining in the Republican Party without being the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Guarneri,
One could argue that Hillary, by hiding under the table, is at least trying not to openly lie. I suppose that’s sort of good.
Ben
Uh, er, well, I suppose one could argue that. I hope you won’t think less of me to suggest an alternative: she’s a spineless, dishonest opportunist who intends to run on one issue only – I’m a women.
B & R were joke suggestions. I suggested them because they seem to be Obama’s #2 and #1 vote getters, respectively, in the House at the moment. Surely working that hard to get a (D) the votes he wants ought to count for something!
I suppose that’s sort of good.
Trying to hold on to some semblance of an optimistic take on human nature, Ben?
The election cycle is underway. At this point, just like the GOP, I don’t think they have a single leader. Always happens at this point in the second term.
Steve
Absent a major scandal, I don’t believe that’s true, steve. However, I’m willing to listen to evidence that supports your claim.
Every two term president since Eisenhower has lost seats in Congress in the second mid-term elections. Not having adequate support from their own parties, what legislation they have passed, usually not nearly as numerous or consequential as in the first two years, has been done by working on issues the opposition supports, not that of their own party. Also note that even Reagan had a veto overturned (there were 45 GOP senators) by Congress, with W having 4 vetos overturned.
Steve
I don’t see it. There have been only two two-term presidencies since Eisenhower that haven’t had major scandals in their second terms: Reagan and W. Johnson had Viet Nam which I think counts as a scandal. Nixon had Watergate. Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. Both Reagan and W. were setting the agendas for their parties throughout their terms.
What you’re talking about is their losing previous influence outside their parties.
Nixon had Watergate.
Nixon had Nixon.
And why do we ever elect these jokers to a second terms? I think FDR and Eisenhower are the only ones that deserved re-election in the last 100 years. Everyone else has just been useless the second time around.
Reagan had Iran-Contra. Anyway, W had 4 vetos overturned, which required assistance from GOP senators since the Dems did not have 67 on their own. Also let me correct myself and note that Reagan had 5 vetos overridden, often by very large margins, in his second term.
Query- Why wouldn’t Iraq count as a scandal if Viet Nam counts as one?
Do I really need to show you a photo of the demonstrations or a count of how many there were? By comparison Iraq was unremarked upon.
Now that I think about it Johnson didn’t serve two terms, just the one largely because of the Viet Nam war, so he doesn’t count anyway. So there have only been two presidents who served two terms without a major scandal since Eisenhower. Since President Obama will presumably get through his second term without a major scandal, he’ll be the third.
I do not recall the Senate Majority or Minority Leader or the House Minority Leader ever organizing opposition to a bill that Reagan supported. Maybe it’s a faulty memory on my part.
None of this should be construed as my having supported Reagan. I never much cared for him, just as I have never much cared for any president of my lifetime (other than Ike).