Obama turns to his base for trade support

[n2doc]

The president will use a Thursday speech at an Organizing for America summit in Washington to sell liberals on supporting a fast-track trade bill that is seen as crucial to finalizing a pair of international agreements at the top of his agenda.

But many Democratic lawmakers and labor unions are working to kill the bill.

“He’s going to speak to this next generation of progressives and organizers from across the country and continue to make the case for trade promotion authority that paves the way for new, high-standard trade agreements that put American workers first and help American businesses expand,” White House spokesman Eric Schulz said Wednesday.

Obama is ramping up his sales pitch to Democrats, many of whom oppose trade promotion authority bills because they worry new deals with Europe and Asian nations would hurt American workers.

more

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/239710-obama-turns-to-his-base-for-trade-support

[sabrina 1]

2. Is he going to release the text so Congress knows what he's asking them to Fast Track?

That would be the only way for him to get the support of those who supported him.

[daleanime]

52. Even if he did, and the TPP was made of gold and fairy dust....

I wouldn't want Fast Track passed. It hangs around for too long and makes it too easy to ram crappy 'trade' deals through.

[jwirr]

96. He knows what is in it. He also knows what we are worried about. No more generic speeches. Just

answer our worries. That is how he will get support.

[Hoyt]

68. Yes. He will release it. Will you actually read it?

[merrily]

76. Trying to get DU's left to defend itself at every turn just never gets old, does it?

[sabrina 1]

106. I've read the parts were released by Wikileaks, and if the rest of it

is anywhere near as bad as what we know already, I can see why they are trying so hard to hide it from the American people.

Eg, do you know if the TPP addresses and fixes the Trade Deficit that all the other Trade Agreements have created?

I don't, the leaks didn't cover that.

It's being hidden from us and I would love to see how that very important issue is addressed, if at all, in this secret agreement.

I most certainly will read it. IF we get a chance before it's a done deal, which seems to be the goal here.

To get it passed before we have a chance to see it.

[Hoyt]

107. You'll have plenty of time before Congress considers it.

[TheKentuckian]

111. Plenty of time to do what? Know what the TeaPubliKlans are going to vote for with no away to stop it

There is no option but to filllabuster fast track to death.

[Hoyt]

113. What happens if Obama sends them a good agreement? I don't believe he'll send a bad one

to Congress, for the very reason you suggest.

[TheKentuckian]

115. I don't care what you believe not to disrespect you but because it has no bearing

Even if Obama has nothing but the best of intentions he can just be wrong or relying on the wrong advice for which he has plenty of opportunities because some of his closest economic advisors are among the most consistently wrong-headed with inaccurate forecasts perhaps especially in this very area.

Of course I don't think Obama is infailable, all knowing, utterly and wonderously moral, has perfect wisdom, has the proper worldview on all topics, is all seeing, and has perfect prescience with the ultimate and all pervasive intelligence either.

I don't think any human, particularly one I don't even know should be given anywhere near that level of belief or trust especially when the most wrong and wicked motherfuckers ever are putting all differences aside and getting onboard.

You know it is beyond bad for most Americans when the TeaPubliKlans can slow their destroy agenda aside to help with the heavy lifting, education deform all over again. Even JEB and Pat Robertson went to work on that one and it was still at the heights then and so it is now.

[Hoyt]

116. He and his educated advisers could be right too. Lots of people wouldn't even realize it.

Some wouldn't admit it, either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. I predict that it will be impenetrably worded.

Just like NAFTA, GATT and others.

We will only begin to understand them by virtue of the fallout, such as repeal of Glass Steagal, which was dictated by the WTO and a $220,000 fine against an individual who downloaded 20 songs which was a result of a directive in NAFTA (which renders our prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment moot)

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

[bigwillq]

3. No, thanks, Obama. (nt)

[Maedhros]

4. Sorry, not buying. [n/t]

[cali]

5. Go, for it, Mr. President. But please be more honest than you were last night

[Koinos]

6. Turn to His Base?

At first, I thought "turn to his base" meant addressing his corporate billionaire friends.

Is he that far removed from what it means to be a democrat?

Well, I guess it won't be too long until he will be booking $500,000 speaking engagements.

I am way past surprise and disillusion with this president.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. I'm sure you are.

Welcome to DU. I hope you enjoy your stay.

[LordGlenconner]

18. You're trying a little too hard

Ease it down a notch or two.

[sufrommich]

20. lol. nt

[JaneyVee]

26. Back so soon?

[Rolando]

56. I'm right behind you, Koinos

I used to think I agreed with Democrats on most issues, but I have come to the conclusion that--I'm not sure how to make this clear--
We had slavery. That didn't work. So we held down the ex-slaves. And the immigrants. And the poor. Then we decided to seek our servants overseas, such as in China, India, Bangladesh, etc. And we pretend we're helping those countries.

[still_one]

65. "You used to agree with Democrats on most issues". I doubt it, unless you were around when FDR was

President.

Let's see, Johnson was amazing on social issues, but on the international level he was a disaster, and a lot of kids lost their lives because of it.

Jimmy Carter was great internationally in trying to bring nations together, but he deregulated the airline industry, and kind of covered up TMI.

Clinton had both good and bad points, and the same goes with President Obama

[merrily]

77. You do seem close. That may not work out well.

[still_one]

64. You may be against the TPP, and that is fine, but do you even know what this president has

accomplished? I doubt it. I suspect you are upset that the ACA is not single-payer, ignoring the fact that single-payer could not pass, because not enough Democrats in Congress would support it. Guess what, it expanded Medicare, people who could NOT get insurance could get it now, and uninsured for the first have an opportunity to be insured. Is it perfect, no, but it is a start, especially compared to what was there before.

Chemical weapons were removed from Syria. Ah, so what you might say.

Negotiations with Iran instead of war, yeah right, "he is far removed from what it means to be a democrat?"

GM and the American auto industry is here today because of President Obama. A lot more jobs would have been lost if those steps were not taken.

Dodd/Frank,

Pushed equal pay for equal work, minimum wage, women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, etc.

and a lot of other things which I am not going to mention.

[Rex]

110. Most people in D.C. think 250k a year is middle class.

The D.C. bubble is so in need of popping. Instead all we get are these economic crisis bubbles...paid for by US the taxpayer.

AND if you think this just happens to certain POTUSes, NOPE every single one.

YOU WANT CHANGE...you will have to start with the billionaires, not a one is really friends with the POTUS.

Good luck!

[brentspeak]

7. An Organizing for America event

Like one of Bush's phony town-hall meetings, only with a corporate Democratic president instead of a corporate Republican president doing the talking:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/21/organizing-action-formerly-obama-america-tries-calm-democrats-misleading-email-fast-track-trade-authority/

Organizing for Action Tries to Soothe Dems With Misleading Email on Fast Track Trade Authority

The millions of people who signed up to get email from Mitt Romney in 2012 would be pretty irked if they started getting messages now from his team about a super new bill in Congress that raises taxes, cuts the Pentagon’s budget in half and forcibly marries every registered Republican man to Neil Patrick Harris.

So you can imagine how members of Organizing for Action, or OFA, felt when they got email on Friday telling them about a super new “Trade Promotion Authority” bill. Passage of the Trade Promotion Authority, better known as “fast track,” would pave the way for the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, or TPP, which includes a grab-bag of things the Democratic base absolutely loathes. It would raise the cost of prescription drugs, give Obama an environmental trade record “worse than George Bush’s,” create a special legal system for multinational corporations to kill any domestic law that hurts profits, and much more.

The OFA email was especially head-turning because OFA is a successor organization to President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns (which had the same initials, then standing for Obama for America), built on the email lists developed during those campaigns of millions of volunteers and supporters. And any political campaign’s email lists are, in a real sense, the shared creation of everyone involved in the campaign.

The OFA email did not ask members to take action supporting fast track; instead, it appears to be an attempt to mollify them enough so they don’t take action opposing it. In any case, the email is filled with assertions clearly crafted to mislead OFA members...

[merrily]

78. Nice to see you. You wrote one of the best DU OPs I've ever seen. Nice to be able to thank you.

[brentspeak]

105. You're welcome

[BlueCaliDem]

8. If the TPP fails, NAFTA will remain "as is". One of President Obama's campaign promises was to

renegotiate NAFTA and to remove the unfairness within that agreement that Liberals and Big Labor abhor so much. TPP will do that. The United States, Canada, and Mexico are part of NAFTA but also among the countries in negotiation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Again...if the TPP failes, NAFTA remains "as is". Is that what we want?

If you want to actually read the analysis of TPP and why President Obama needs the "fast track" (giving Congress 90 days to either vote up or down on the finalized agreement without trying to filibuster it or bog it down with countless idiotic amendments) in order to finalize the agreement with our international partners, go here: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/3/17/the-tpp-education-project-preface-fast-track-secret-deal-nafta

If you want to continue to distrust this president and who want to keep NAFTA as is, don't bother. The link is provided for DUers who are seriously interested in informing themselves outside of the loud and negative chatter.

I will repeat one more time...if the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement fails, NAFTA will remain "as is". Ask yourself if that's what you really want.

[Koinos]

11. international partners

Can you list the corporations involved in these negotiations?

[BlueCaliDem]

14. I would assume the same that were involved with NAFTA.

[Koinos]

23. Corporations

Why are corporations involved, but representatives of the people kept in the dark? What about unions, environmentalists, and consumer advocates? And we the people have a right to know before the deal is sealed, so we can state our case.

But please do go ahead and list the multinational corporations that were involved with NAFTA. If these are the ones negotiating TIPP, then how can we be sure we won't get an even worse deal than before? Are you saying that Obama will get a better deal than Clinton did? Are you saying that multinational corporations will put American workers, American courts, American regulations, and American jobs ahead of profits?

At this point, I trust Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, and the majority of democrats, including unions, who are opposing this lousy trade deal.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. So you'd rather keep NAFTA as is?

Because that's what will happen should the TPP fail.

At this point, I trust Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, and the majority of democrats, including unions, who are opposing this lousy trade deal.

Um...there IS NO DEAL. They're still in negotiations!

Why are corporations involved, but representatives of the people kept in the dark?

They're not. They - and YOU - have access to the information being negotiated. It's on the U.S. Trade Representative's website, for chrissakes. It details everything from an issue-by-issue coverage to an outline of the agreement to stakeholder engagement events.

What? Senators Sanders, Warren, and Big Labor forget to mention that? How strange.

[TheKentuckian]

38. What specifically is being fixed?

[BlueCaliDem]

39. I gave you the links to the U.S Trade Representative site.

You can see for yourself by comparing NAFTA and what the TPP will change in NAFTA (considering that the three countries that are a part of NAFTA are in negotiations of the TPP).

[TheKentuckian]

45. So meandering rhetoric and fluff? Gotcha.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. You know yourself so well, TK! Good for you! eom

[Hoyt]

69. Folks are not doing a lot of research into TPP, seem to be accepting of BS.

[lovemydog]

71. That's why I'm going to research it more, and will listen to President Obama's

speech in full. I hate it when people mischaracterize things based on what they've heard from someone else or if they've only read one side about it and don't even acknowledge the other side's arguments. I suspect right now that it's big unions that are opposed and some are just repeating what's said by their leaders. That's okay, but yeesh, what about all the other people in our country who might benefit. Some of the critics, saying things like 'it's the end of the democratic process!' or 'it will lead to the end of the country!' are rather, to put it nicely, histrionic.

A few years ago, at a dog park, someone yelled at me: 'This country has never been more divided!' I was like, uh, what about the slavery, the Civil War, the immigration battles, the Red Scare, The Civil Rights Struggles, The Vietnam War, The Korean War, The Iraq War, in fact when has our country not been divided on some issue....he walked away.

[BlueCaliDem]

89. Yep. That's why I've provided links to the U.S. Trade Representative's site.

I hope to help educate them.

[Hoyt]

90. Good luck.

[still_one]

54. you do know that the deal will be made public before the vote, and will allow time for the public to

view it before it is voted on Nay or Yea, right?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/business/obama-fast-track-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0

[Hoyt]

72. The advisory committees included every major union. Others who had input included universities,

state farm associations, the Consumer Union, etc.

The people actually negotiating are government officials, and most are career government officials.

You are in good hands.

[cali]

30. what a crock. There's plenty of erudite analysis. The TPA will not fix Nafta

Draft chapters of the TPP indicate that the TPP sure won't.

Our best hope for seeing more of it is a lawsuit underway.

Read the info at these links and get back to me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026547878

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548587

I trust the masses of research I've done over the past 2 years. As far as trusting people and organizations go, I trust Senators Sanders, Warren, Brown and others who have seen drafts and are opposed. I do NOT trust the rethugs and corporations and their agents who support it.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

101. + a whole hell of a lot!

[Elwood P Dowd]

32. Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Orrin Hatch, Heritage, & the RNC say thank you for your support

of our new shiney trade toy and your latest talking point. Oh, and the Wall Street billionaires say thank you also.

Are you ready for the new oligarchy? Just sing "Yes, I'm ready".

[zipplewrath]

46. Can't find the labor protections

I can't find the labor protections for US workers. I can't see where it avoids the race to the bottom. He promised all that but it isn't there.

There's virtually nothing in the environmental section. It's all about future efforts. Truth is, considering that we don't do a great job in many areas, I'm not sure how we could negotiate anything that would improve foreign countries. More likely, THEY would get to approach US about our activities, and in many cases try to weaken our most effective efforts as anti-trade.

Oh, and just because THIS treaty isn't passed, doesn't mean that a President (Clinton?) can't renegotiate NAFTA. Heck, O'Mally might do just that.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Most likely because they're still in negotiation?

Labor

Ensuring respect for worker rights is a core value. That is why in TPP the United States is seeking to build on the strong labor provisions in the most recent U.S. trade agreements by seeking enforceable rules that protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining; discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor, including forced child labor; and establish mechanisms to monitor and address labor concerns.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

Requirements to adhere to fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization, as well as acceptable conditions of work, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;

Rules that will ensure that TPP countries do not waive or derogate from labor laws in a manner that affects trade or investment, including in free trade zones, and that they take initiatives to discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor;

Formation of a consultative mechanism to develop specific steps to address labor concerns when they arise; and

Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP country is not meeting its labor commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-chapter-chapter-negotiating-4

Still distrust this president, despite his past accomplishments in favor of workers?

Really, I believe he's earned the right to expect our trust because of his past accomplishments in favor of the environment and labor. It baffles my mind that he isn't even given the tiniest bit of trust by some who self-proclaim to be his "base".

Oh, and just because THIS treaty isn't passed, doesn't mean that a President (Clinton?) can't renegotiate NAFTA. Heck, O'Mally might do just that.

Why wait? Especially when you should know that renegotiating certain (and harmful) provisions in NAFTA was a campaign promise?

[zipplewrath]

117. yes

Still distrust this president, despite his past accomplishments in favor of workers?

Yes, I do. Furthermore, I still don't see how any of that suggests he is going to work to avoid a "race to the bottom" in terms of making American workers compete with Vietnam wages.

[BlueCaliDem]

118. Then there's no more to discuss with you. You've already made up your mind to distrust

this president, and I'm not going to waste my time convincing you to do otherwise (not that I could - it is impossible to change a mind that's already made up).

So we'll just agree to disagree.

[zipplewrath]

119. And you haven't

Are you saying your mind isn't made up? Really what are the odds that you'll suddenly go "oh, no Obama screwed that up" when the document is finally made public?

[2banon]

50. "TPP will do that."

You said:

If the TPP fails, NAFTA will remain "as is". One of President Obama's campaign promises was to View profile renegotiate NAFTA and to remove the unfairness within that agreement that Liberals and Big Labor abhor so much. TPP will do that.

Source?

[BlueCaliDem]

58. Try the U.S. Trade Representative site.

You can't get any more authoritative than that, can you?

Sorry, but I've been posting links to it all day and I'm a bit raw.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Holy cow!

Epic.

I hear the TPP also cures halitosis and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. Cows are holy?

Who would've thunk it.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. They are in India

[BlueCaliDem]

88. Is Manny Indian, then? eom

[hifiguy]

99. No, but he might be a cow.

But he's never full of bull.

[BlueCaliDem]

104. Good comeback!

[geek tragedy]

9. unless he's offering more transparency, very few will be listening nt

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Here's some transparency - and truth: If TPP fails, NAFTA remains AS IS; unchanged,

and will continue to disadvantage the American worker. That's the bald-faced truth of the matter.

What President Obama is doing is keeping his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA. Three of the countries in NAFTA are: The United States, Canada, and Mexico. These same countries are in negotiations for TPP. The TPP is the renegotiated agreement that will remove the unfairness in NAFTA. I thought we all wanted that?

Why are people so quick to distrust this president so after all he's done for the American people and always with American workers in mind?

[geek tragedy]

13. a lot of people we trust are opposing it as well

I prefer to operate from facts not trust

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Yet, you're currently operating from the position of "trust" from those you "trust",

rather than the facts.

However, if you really mean what you say, here's an excellent analysis on TPP: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/3/17/the-tpp-education-project-preface-fast-track-secret-deal-nafta

May I repeat: If the TPP fails, NAFTA will remain AS IS. That's the alternative.

[geek tragedy]

21. I'm neither opposed nor in favor right now.

I don't have the facts necessary to form an opinion.

[BlueCaliDem]

25. Have you read the analysis? I have, and I now lean in favor of a TPP.

But that's because I want NAFTA renegotiated and don't want to keep it "as is".

I trusted this president when he fought for health care reform - and today, have affordable health care because of it.

I trusted this president when he said he'd get bin Laden. And he did.

I trusted this president when he fought for the stimulus - and saved our economy while more "enlightened" European economists opted for austerity - and guess whose economy is coming back in leaps and bounds?

I trusted this president when he said that he'd get rid of DADT "the right way" - and he helped get rid of DOMA as well. The right way.

I trust that this president aims to keep his campaign promise that he would renegotiate NAFTA:

[justiceischeap]

29. That's the alternative for now. The next Democratic President

could theoretically renegotiate NAFTA.

[GoneFishin]

15. Ah. I see a new apologist talking point has been conjured up. It's bullshit propaganda. But it's

interesting to watch the wheels turn, groping desperately for excuses for why we should lay down and let the TPP run our asses over.

[TheKentuckian]

47. GOOD! At least it is some deviation from some of the most well worn bullshit talking points ever

Not any better than the old dried up feces but different it has to get old repeating the lines of the worst assembly of wicked and greedy fucks in the history of primates much less humans that have been bleeding us out for decades.

Imagine having screwed yourself up to sell this toxic waste, it has to be a relief to have something else to say because it is pretty sparse other than the tired lies of the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, and worker hating Republicans.

I almost feel bad to tell them that the newest retelling of the magic beans con isn't something to be bought for a moment...almost.

[GoneFishin]

49. It must be sort of surreal to have a job where your major responsibility is lying your ass off to

people who know you are lying your ass off. Imagine how much it would have sucked to be George junior's press secretary.

Not that I feel sorry for them. But for them, self-respect and dignity must be pretty scarce.

[dmosh42]

16. Support what?? We don't know anything officially in writing!

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Everything so far negotiated is on the U.S. Trade Representative's site:

https://ustr.gov/tpp

That's pretty official to me.

[dmosh42]

35. That's more of a broad outline of what the deal is supposed to contain, but not 'specific'.

[BlueCaliDem]

41. Yes, yes. Like I said,

"everything so far negotiated". No deal has been made concrete yet. But you knew that.

[dmosh42]

43. According to what I heard, they want a vote to 'fast track' whatever there is in writing, which...

has been available to the Congress, lobbyist and many big corporation officers, but not to the American public! WTF?

[BlueCaliDem]

44. "Fast Track" means that Congress has a full 90 days to review and either

vote down or up the final agreement (House gets 60 days, Senate gets another 30 days = 90 days in total). It does NOT mean that Congress gives the president a "blank-check" and that whatever he agrees on is set in stone. They can still vote it DOWN.

"Fast Track" or Trade Promotion Authority, simply gives the president the credibility and authority to negotiate with other countries in good faith, aiming for the best deal possible for the United States, and it keeps Congress from bogging the deal down with countless amendments and new rules.

Without fast track, Congress can kill (and with the current crop of majorities in Congress, they will kill any bill that seeks to change NAFTA) and will have the power to renegotiate any trade deals already negotiated by the president and accepted by our global partners and, as stated above, insert their own "demands".

For example, let's say that Congress decides not to vote on the Trade Promotion Authority (fast track) and decides to renegotiate in order to insert a global gag-rule on abortions?

Or what if Congress decides to force other countries to acknowledge the United States' right to buy drugs for our (barbaric) Death Penalty killings - something other countries abhor, by the way - and demand that they be supplied those drugs again?

Remember...international pharmaceutical companies have banned the sale of drugs used for lethal injection to the United States since those drugs were manufactured to heal not kill people.

With this crop of "majority" in both the Senate and House, the sky's the limit with what they can do with that power. The Republican-controlled Senate can't even vote for the president's new attorney general, yet we're supposed to believe they can renegotiate international trade agreements in good faith?

[WilliamPitt]

17. Jesus wept.

[YoungDemCA]

62. Oh for fuck's sake. Get a grip.

The world is not going to end because America's twice-elected, Democratic, first black President is negotiating (or attempting to negotiate) a trade agreement.

[still_one]

66. Pretty good drama is right, but I have to tell you Will is a good writer so he knows the buttons

to push.

[merrily]

79. Another attempt to cast all criticism of Obama as racism.

Some never seem to tire of that, no matter how untrue it is.

[AzDar]

92. Attempting to paint this as having anything to do with race is just fucking offensive.

[TheKentuckian]

114. What does Obama's racial make up have to do with this?

[pampango]

22. The Democratic base already supports him (not the GOP base, of course) but it makes sense

to address them and not take them for granted.

[cali]

31. They don't trust him on this.

[pampango]

33. They do from the polls I have seen. Are there new ones? n/t

[cali]

34. Polls have consistently shown that Americans don't support the TPP

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

[pampango]

37. True. Only the Democratic base does support it. republicans and independents do not. n/t

[betterdemsonly]

48. Future Presidents have to win people who are not in the present Democratic base n/t

[YoungDemCA]

63. ...which was the whole point of the much reviled "Third Way" Democrats

nt

[betterdemsonly]

70. That presumes they're honest

having said that it is kind of ironic that as time progresses it s their policies which are turning off middle americans. One should not confuse centrism with moderation. Moderation is slow change, Centrism is a jumble of being uber liberal on personal freedom and minority advancement on the corporate boards and elite universities, and being attilla the hun on economic issues, with lots of corporate welfare to the rich and austerity to the poor.

[pampango]

73. As always the question is: Do we attract independents and republicans by adopting their policies or

by sticking to ours and convincing them that we are right?

[betterdemsonly]

94. I think corporate dictatorship is right wing.

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

and is a move to a attract donors, not voters. Liberal is a term that has little meaning at this point. Right wing economists like Hayak, Von Mises and Friedman consider themselves "Classical Liberals."

[pampango]

95. Agreed but you said we "have to win people who are not in the present Democratic base". How

do we attract these independents and republicans ("not at present in the Democratic base&quot ? Do we move away from our base on policies where we think they are misguided like TPP and towards views that independents and republicans hold? (And would that be considered the dreaded 'triangulation' since we would be heading towards a policy favored by independents and republicans in order to win elections?

I suppose that view makes sense if you believe that our base supports 'corporate dictatorship' and the conservative (or does that term have little meaning, as well?) base opposes it.

Liberal is a term that has little meaning at this point.

That is news to me. For a long time conservatives have portrayed the word "liberal" as a negative thing. Many of us are proud to be liberals. The term may have little meaning to you but is one many of us embrace.

[betterdemsonly]

97. I don't think advocating progressive policies to appeal to independents is ever a bad thing.

I don't respect "self described liberals" who advocate right wing policies. Liberal is not an objective term with an agreed upon meaning.

I will add that Obama's OFA supporters can't be counted on to vote in midterms so there no evidence they are committed voters, who care about issues enough to educate themselves.

[pampango]

98. You really don't have to "advocate progressive policies" to them. On TPP they are already 'progressive'.

And republicans are even more 'progressive' on TPP than the independents. Overwhelmingly so.

Strange world, isn't it? In this strange world of republican 'progressives', you really need to be "advocating progressive policies to appeal to" the Democratic base. If our base is full of "self described liberals" who "advocate right wing policies" they need some progressive policy advocation and they need it quick?

Don't waste your time advocating progressive policies to a republican base, composed of "self describe conservatives", who already advocate progressive policies, at least with respect to TPP. They are already believers. Spend your time on the folks you don't respect - our base.

[betterdemsonly]

102. Who says I respect self described conservatives

They have long displayed more evidence of cliquishness than ideological consistency. Though they are committed voters, and party builders, and do understand the poltical system better than the modern ofa dominated democrats. They have built asskicking state and local party infrastructure, and can deliver in midterms at the local and state level. Even in traditionally liberal states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. I have to look at this in awe even as I am saddened.

[pampango]

103. I didn't say that. You only posted that you don't respect the Democratic base, not the you did

respect 'self described conservatives'.

And I have not found the republican base to be that "ideologically inconsistent". I find them to be consistently right wing. I cannot think of any time when their base came out loud and strong for a liberal or progressive policy. Or is their agreeing with you on TPP the one thing that earns them the label of "ideologically inconsistent"?

[eridani]

81. So why is it the Republicans who are backing it?

If you are for TPP, you are with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Since when does the Democratic base support Republican legislation?

[pampango]

85. "Republicans" (their base) are not supporting it. republican politicians are supporting it.

IMHO, the republican establishment does not give a hoot what their base's opinion is on this. Perhaps you disagree.

Since when does the Democratic base support Republican legislation?

I see no history of our base supporting Boehner and McConnell. In this case, my guess is that they trust Obama more than they distrust Boehner and McConnell. The polls I have seen have not asked questions as to why the respondents feel the way they do, so your guess is as good as mine as to what our base's reasoning is.

[merrily]

80. And another attempt to cast all criticism of Obama as Republican.

No matter how untrue, transparent or played out these talking points are, they still seem to be bring joy to some. Like a goldfish who never seems to tire of swimming toward that fake castle in the bowl. Couldn't be cuter. Or more boring. I forget which.

[pampango]

82. IF I ever posted that "all criticism of Obama is Republican", I will go back and delete it.

I don't believe I ever posted anything like that.

I have posted polls (not just my opinion) that a MAJORITY (not ALL) of the Democratic base supports the TPP and Obama's position. And a majority (not all) republicans oppose it. If that nuance needs to be boiled down into "ALL of this" and "NONE of that", be my guest.
And I do appreciate your focus on a DU poster rather than the issue at hand. You make an eloquent and convincing case that your opinion is superior.

[merrily]

83. Hence "cast" rather than "state."

[pampango]

86. "Subjective interpretation" rather than "declarative statement". n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

24. And if his base is as smart as they believe themselves to be, they'll listen.

Otherwise, they're doing nothing more than listening to negative gossip influenced by people who appear to have a myopic view of the issue and who are unintentionally - or intentionally - supporting NAFTA.

The TPP is a projected deal that will renegotiate NAFTA. When you have a renowned and much-celebrated Berkeley economist like Christina Romer supporting the TPP, you know that it has to be good for the United States. She was spot-on with her recommendation that we needed to invest rather than cut in order to prevent a Great Recession from becoming a Great DEpression.

In late 2008, Romer along with fellow economic advisors Larry Summers and Peter R. Orszag presented then-President-elect Barack Obama with recommendations for a stimulus package.[17] Romer calculated that a $1.8-trillion package was necessary to fill the output gap, but Summers rejected the proposal and opted not to include it in the memo fearing that a trillion-dollar package would not pass through Congress.[18] The Obama administration ultimately passed an $800-billion package.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Romer

[cali]

36. absolute bull

Sorry I've posted scores of threads giving the lie to your claim

[still_one]

60. What President Obama says on this does not matter, what does matter is what is in the agreement

Before the vote takes place the agreement will be made available for the public and Congress to determine its merits or demerits of the agreement. On that basis, and how much the public can voice their opinions to their Senators and Congress people, the agreement will either be passed or not passed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/business/obama-fast-track-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0

My point is that by all accounts we should be able to see the final agreement before it is voted on

[99Forever]

40. AS a member of his base, just let me say:

FUCK NO!

[Autumn]

42. As a member of "his" base I promise this. I am watching.

Any Democrat who does not come out against this, will never get my vote. That includes any Democratic nominee.

[pampango]

75. republicans are watching their politicians even more closely than we are.

68% of republicans (74% of 'conservative republicans') will hold a pro-fast track vote against their candidate compared to 17% of Democrats.

I wonder who the 11% that want their politician to support fast track.

[neverforget]

51. Does the base include the US Chamber of Commerce, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Orin Hatch

John Boehner? When have these clowns EVER helped American workers?

[L0oniX]

55. LMFAO ...sad ...very sad. Don't expect much support from the under the bus crowd.

[Autumn]

91. I find it hilarious he gives a speech to Organizing for Action and actually says

"You need to tell me what's wrong with this trade agreement, not one that was passed 25 years ago," he said, urging his supporters to spread the word.. I'm sorry how can his volunteers and donors tell him what's wrong with this trade agreement when They don't fucking know what's in it Did none of them fucking catch that? It must have gone over their heads in the warm glow of his speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/obama-tpp-opposition_n_7132208.html

[L0oniX]

93. ^^^THIS^^^

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. I know that part of his base this morning

was not impressed with this.

I posted a thread here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026557209

[lovemydog]

74. From what I've read here and other places, I don't think he'll get much support

from his base.

Though I will listen to his speech.

Thanks for mentioning it here.

I hope someone posts the full speech here at DU.

[sendero]

84. Just think...

... if Obama had fought this hard back in 2009, we might have single payer. The FIRST time he gets real with his game is to support this monstrosity.

[hifiguy]

100. Nope. Nae. Never.

No way, Jose.

"We won't get fooled again." - Pete Townshend

[Contrary1]

108. They'll end up doing whatever the hell they want...

regardless of what his "base" thinks. Selling us the idea that we actually have a voice in the matter is more like it.

[Rex]

109. That's not going to work imo.

He will have to pass it alone if we really wants this deal. SO far, all I see is no deal.

[City Lights]

112. Sorry, Mr. President, I'm not buying it. nt