O'Malley on TPA: “I’m fundamentally opposed to anything we’re not allowed to read-that’s un-American

[bigtree]

from Phill Courtney, Guest columnist at Redlands Daily Facts:


...I had a few moments of face time with Mr. O’Malley in the lobby (Redlands High School Atlantic Monthly correspondent James Fallows in conversation Tuesday) and told him I was impressed by the admiring reference Fallows made of O’Malley’s prescient warning some 12 years ago about invading Iraq (much of which unfortunately came true). I asked him how he’d like to see U.S. foreign policy change in the future.

“I think we’re moving into an era where the United States is going to be called upon to engage in a much more collaborative foreign policy. We cannot and should not be the world’s policemen, or the world’s judge, jury and executioner. We need to be engaged with like-minded people around the world (he said).”

(...)

“So then,” I said, “you’re committed to being against the TPP?”

“I’m totally against the TPP.”

“Really?”

“I’m fundamentally opposed to anything we’re not allowed to read,” he said. “I think that’s un-American.”

I found O’Malley refreshingly unscripted, candid and sincere. No fence-sitting there...


read more: http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/opinion/20150508/phillosophically-speaking-all-politics-is-local

[elleng]

1. THANKS, BIGTREE!

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

GOOD one!!!

[yeoman6987]

34. We rarely ever get to read what's in a bill before it passes. Heck sometimes we don't even after it

[winter is coming]

2. He's got nothing to lose by speaking his mind.

Hillary is going to lose her campaign for the nomination by trying to save it. Voters don't like vague non-answers.

[Iliyah]

12. Grandma may survive

[sabrina 1]

3. Good for him. He's a sane person. Imagine someone being asked to sign a contract without

reading it? Are the CRAZY? Do they think WE are?

Another good Dem candidate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Yes, the more I hear from MOM, the more I like about him.

[sabrina 1]

7. Yes, I like him a lot too. I am supporting Bernie but O'Malley is very interesting also. It is great

to know there will be some candidates in the race who are right on some of the most important issues.

[CharlotteVale]

5. He's right.

[MohRokTah]

6. What is O'Malley's path to victory?

How does O'Malley expect to raise the required $1 billion in order to win the election?

[sabrina 1]

8. Same way Bernie is doing it, from the PEOPLE and the Unions and other organizations that used to

donate huge amounts of money to the DNC, but are no longer willing, as they warned a few years ago, to be taken for granted. Bernie is likely to attract a lot of that money, and if O'Malley has been a Union supporter he can too. He is opposed to the TPP, as are the Unions and every sane person in the country.

And both should should challenge ALL candidates to refuse, as Bernie has, to take any of the poisonous money from Wall St.

It is going to be a huge issue in this campaign. Corporate funded candidates are now viewed with great suspicion by a majority of voters.

[bigtree]

9. not 'required' to raise that much

...just expected.

I personally think it's worth pursuing, if only to challenge that perception or premise.

[MohRokTah]

10. Definitely required.

No $1 billion means no white house.

[bigtree]

16. in that case, why hold elections?

...why not just sell the office to the highest bidder? Spend the money on something nice for the country.

It's thinking like this which is ruining our democracy and begging to be challenged. I'll tell you what, tho...if that billion comes in the form of individual donations, we've got a revolution.

[MohRokTah]

17. ISn't that pretty much what's already happening?

So long as you have Citizens United as the law of the land, this is the political reality we find ourselves in.

If a candidate is incapable of raising $1 billion for the campaign in 2016, that candidate is incapable of being president.

That's the way it is. I did not make the rules, I only understand how they work.

[bigtree]

19. I hope to change your 'understanding'

...and those aren't 'rules,' it's nothing but contrived cynicism.

[MohRokTah]

20. There's no altering reality.

This is the reality. Hide your head in the sand all you like, the price for admittance into the White House on January 20, 2017 is at least $1 billion.

[bigtree]

21. then why vote at all?

...everything is already inevitable.

If we follow your 'rule' republicans won the last presidential election, having outspent our nominee.

[MohRokTah]

31. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Blue Team
Candidate Spending $683,546,548
National Party Spending $292,264,802
Outside Spending $131,303,352
Total $1,107,114,702


Red Team
Candidate Spending $433,281,516
National Party Spending $386,180,565
Outside Spending $418,635,080
Total $1,238,097,161

Source

The big difference is that Outside Spending had the least effect. Effectively, $1 spent by the campaign is worth $3 spent by outside SuperPACs.

So tell me, how does anybody other than Hillary Clinton raise the REQUIRED $1 billion in order to win the presidency in 2016?

[bigtree]

36. you're discounting the outside spending while highlighting Citizens United as the culprit

...and you say it's ME with my head in the sand.

lol.

$418,635,080 to $131,303,352 spent by Dem allies, and you claim that had the 'least effect?'

lololol

I think voters are ready to take these presidential elections back from the big money players. They are the ones in the drivers seat, whether they realize it now, or not.

[MohRokTah]

37. I don't discount the outside spending one bit.

It has the least effect in terms of swaying undecideds. That is a fact because it is only spent on the air game while campaign money is mostly focused on the ground game (GOTV)

It will be multiplied by a factor of 3 next year.

That's why the campaign MUST raise $1 billion.

Do keep up.

[bigtree]

42. I'm not going to chase you around as you change the goalposts

..more spending simply does not guarantee victory, as you claim.

One billion is a figure contrived by the political moneymakers to discourage any other then the elite from competing. That's not a 'rule' as you claim, but an engineered and contrived scenario.

Another, more progressive notion says that voter participation doesn't necessarily require purchasing by the highest bidder. That's what revolutions are designed to counter. If politicians continue to auger for bought and sold candidacies, there's going to be a backlash, perhaps in this election. Bank on that.

[MohRokTah]

43. You're the one changing goal posts.

Keep up, please, or give up and ignore me.

[bigtree]

45. you hijacked this post about O'Malley's opinion on TPA for this nonsense about money

...making a circular argument and answering your own question by writing O'Malley off (and accusing him of violating campaign laws).

Why are you still on this thread?

(trying too hard)

[JonLP24]

23. As if he wouldn't have the money that comes with being the party nominee

He was the so-called "go to guy" on national defense for Democrats hyping him a long time ago. I'm no fan of O'Malley but he'll get the money if he's the nominee. Don't know if Thomas Steyer will out '16 but he is the top billionaire Democratic donor on climate change alone. There will be so many donors attracted to his "tough on crime" ideas.

[MohRokTah]

32. I simply do not see that.

Give me his path to the fund raising and the victory.

I simply do not see him with those fund raising chops.

[JonLP24]

38. Right here: Four 2016 Hopefuls Accused of Breaking Law

The Campaign Legal Center has filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission against four 2016 presidential hopefuls, accusing them of actively organizing and running early presidential bids without abiding by federal rules related to fundraising limits and disclosure.

The group’s complaints against Republicans Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum and Democrat Martin O’Malley allege they all are already carrying out activities that clearly indicate an organized bid for the presidency — like fundraising, hiring staff and setting up operations in early voting states — but are denying that they are even “testing the waters,” a phase that, under FEC rules, is normally triggered by such activity.

Earlier this week, OpenSecrets Blog and the Guardian jointly published a story looking at how close the non-candidate candidates were getting to triggering requirements that they publicly acknowledge they are either in candidate mode or a “testing the waters” phase. While “testing the waters,” potential candidates must abide by fundraising limits — this year that means taking no more than $2,700 per donor — but don’t have to immediately report the contributions. Once someone officially enters the race, however, all of that fundraising and any spending has to be disclosed, retroactively.

Generally, a candidate, and specifically someone who must file with the FEC, is anyone who spends more than $5,000 while seeking a federal office. The exceptions that allow a person to stay in the “testing the waters” phase no longer apply, however, when “individuals have decided to become candidates.”

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/03/four-2016-hopefuls-accused-of-breaking-law/

I went to Open Secrets to maybe find some big money donors but all I say was the O'Say Can You See PAC and that whatever it is.

[MohRokTah]

39. That does not indicate a clear path to vicotry.

Nor does it indicate a capability of raising $1 billion.

I doubt O'Malley has the chops to raise half that.

[JonLP24]

40. If you're already breaking campaign finance laws this early in the game

it has to show he has the chops to raise money. If the accusations are correct, he's on the same pace Jeb Bush & Scott Walker.

[MohRokTah]

41. Simply hiring a staff is breaking the laws

IT is no indication whatsoever he has the capability of raising the required money.

IT is more of an indication of desperation than anything else.

Nope, that story wipes O'Malley completely off my list of possibles for 2016. There is no way he will ever be president.

[JonLP24]

44. On the last point I agree

I was just saying the Democratic nominee gets the big money by default & Martin O'Malley is moderate & third wayer enough for the Jamie Dimon's "I'm barely a Democrat" but more than the money the nominee needs people's votes & while money helps with travel it is talking directly connecting with voters speaking in favor on issues.

I thought with violating campaign finance laws would show he has the chops though considering Hillary Clinton's 2008 issues

Troy White, Marketing Executive, Pleads Guilty In Alleged Campaign Scheme

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors said Wednesday that a New York marketing executive received more than $600,000 in illicit funds from a Washington businessman to do unsolicited campaign work for a 2008 presidential candidate, identified by a campaign lawyer as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Troy White pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor Wednesday for failing to file tax returns reflecting the amount that his company, Wytehouse Marketing Inc., was paid. But court documents outlined an elaborate scheme in which White allegedly worked with Washington businessman Jeffrey Thompson to help a presidential candidate during several Democratic primaries in the winter and spring of 2008.

While the candidate was not identified in court documents, an attorney for Clinton's 2008 presidential bid confirmed that the case involved her campaign.

Thompson and his network of donors were major contributors to Clinton, and White's website highlights the work his company did for Hillary Clinton and the Bill Clinton Foundation.

White had discussions about working for the campaign in an official capacity but was turned down, the documents show.

"Hillary Clinton for President has cooperated fully in the matter involving Troy White," Lyn Utrecht, a lawyer for her 2008 campaign, said in an email Wednesday. "As the court document filed in this matter clearly states, the Committee turned down Mr. White's services. The Committee will not have any further comment in an ongoing investigation."

After White's efforts to join the campaign were unsuccessful, a campaign official introduced White to a businessman matching Thompson's description, who agreed to pay White to do the same work he had offered to do for the campaign, according to prosecutors. The businessman ultimately funneled $608,750 to Wytehouse through a company owned by a close Thompson associate, the documents show.

Although he is not identified by the court documents in the White case, two people familiar with the investigation said the unidentified executive is Thompson, the Jamaican-born former owner of a politically connected Washington accounting firm. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the person's identity.

The money paid for "street teams" that worked to increase Clinton's visibility in urban areas ahead of several primaries, starting with the Texas primary and caucuses in March 2008. Clinton narrowly defeated then-Sen. Barack Obama in the Texas primary, and Obama won the caucuses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/troy-white-guilty_n_3909340.html

Oh well, they turned him down officially but he goes out there and does it anymore.

[Monk06]

11. Can't read it, folks might want changes. Then all those years of secret negotiations will be wasted.

[bigtree]

18. can't have an unaccountable, autocratic government operating with impunity

...without a few secret negotiations.

[Iliyah]

13. and gun controll

[SMC22307]

14. K&R

[bigtree]

15. kick

[JonLP24]

22. I think he's trying too hard

It is very hard for me to tell what it is sincere & what isn't.

[bigtree]

24. lol (trying too hard)

...he has a history and record of acting on his words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12814

I'm certain his opponents wish he would try a little less to impress in this election.

[JonLP24]

25. I don't really care how does in this election

I'd prefer him over Hillary Clinton and admire his stances on DP & LGBT rights but I can't help but notice his rhetoric. The same day he says the Presidency isn't a crown that should be passed around between two families he also said the Americans "need a President they can trust" without recommended anybody but clearly himself -- but not ready to say "I'm running" except to say everything that says he is but that. "Un-American"? Unfortunately it is very American in the United States of Secrets.

[bigtree]

26. lol, again. He's said, repeatedly, that he's announcing this month - gathering together advisers

...you expect someone about to declare his own candidacy to endorse someone else first?

Government secrecy is certainly prevalent, commonplace, and accepted...by government officials. Among U.S. citizens, however, government secrecy has been routinely and historically objected to; thus, un-American.

[JonLP24]

35. I meant throughout the interview

on Sunday's morning news show on ABC awhile ago. It is at the height of the religious freedom bill but saying Americans "need a President they can trust" without giving names except to praise his own accomplishments "the crown passing around two families" was great rhetoric it isn't a factor as to why I'm in favor of Hillary Clinton and it is slightly a different issue with a former President's spouse but wasn't meant to be just one family during a time period? If not then its hard to say what it was meant to be with the 2nd President and his son also was a President. Then there is the Roosevelt family. If I'm not mistaken Bush is a distant relative of Franklin Pierce.

[elleng]

27. If YOU are sincere, try this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017264170

[Thinkingabout]

28. I wonder if O'Malley has ever investigated why the negotiaing details are somewhat private.

[bigtree]

29. investigated?

...it's obvious.

WH negotiators and the corporations (and foreign entities) who crafted the pact want our own legislature at a distance from the decision-making process of this trade treaty, even to the degree of excluding them from knowing the terms and content negotiated before the president signs it and they vote on it.

[Thinkingabout]

30. That isnt the story I heard but whatever.

[bigtree]

33. you must mean the 'official' explanation

...that the deal would fall apart if the details of the negotiations were made public.

That's a shocker, I tell ya.