Do Republicans Really Support a 'Progressive' Trade Deal? No Comment.

[RiverLover]

Do Republicans Really Support a 'Progressive' Trade Deal? No Comment.

May 14, 2015 As Congress prepares to vote on legislation paving the way for a major Pacific trade pact, expect President Obama to repeat over and over the same claim: "It is the most progressive trade agreement in our history."

It's the mantra he used in an April speech to his political group, Organizing for Action, and again a week ago in a pro-trade address at Nike's Oregon headquarters. A version of the claim tops the White House's website devoted to free trade.

But the line, which may be true (the text isn't yet public), makes Obama's key partners—Republicans—squirm.

"I guess I'm not sure I have a comment on that," says Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. "I think that for a lot of reasons it's really important that we get it done. They obviously have different priorities when they negotiate these things and they emphasize different things maybe in the agreements than we would."

"I think what counts more than what the president says is what's actually in the deal and we don't know what's in the deal yet," adds Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who like Thune is a Republican member of the Finance Committee that writes trade bills.

Republicans would prefer to burn the American flag in front of the statue at Reagan Washington National Airport than support something Obama calls "progressive." But passing a legacy-defining free-trade agreement that Republicans agree upon in principle is one of the few ways to prove that a GOP-led Congress can govern instead of exist from deadline to deadline. They realize that Obama's posturing is squared directly at Democrats, who initially blocked Senate trade legislation from moving forward this week before relenting.

"I think words like that are thrown around all the time," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. "And they're done for political purposes and psychological purposes. I'll just say that this is a trade bill that really makes sense."...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/do-republicans-really-support-a-progressive-trade-deal-no-comment-20150514

Trust the president when the GOP sides with him. He calls it progressive! It must be ok. I mean, really, just because the GOP are falling over themselves to get it passed...

[n2doc]

1. This is a 6 year agreement for fast tracking

Mitch the Turtle has already come out and said that he supports this because it will be the next president (he hopes a repub) who will do the final negotiating.

All the folks who think that their mighty president will protect them forget he leaves in less than 2 years.

[RiverLover]

2. Yep. And the Turtle has called for Hillary to come out publicly in favor of TPA & TPP to help

turn the 168 or so Democrats in the House, who are for now still Standing Up for People.

I hope they stay strong!

If we have a conservative president again in 2016, there are still more countries to get in on this global corporate coup.

[pampango]

3. Republicans - outside of DC - definitely do not support it. Nice to see republican senators 'squirm'

But the line, which may be true (the text isn't yet public), makes Obama's key partners—Republicans—squirm.

"I guess I'm not sure I have a comment on that," says Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. "I think that for a lot of reasons it's really important that we get it done. They obviously have different priorities when they negotiate these things and they emphasize different things in the agreements than we would."

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who opposes the fast-track bill, said he had was undecided on the agreement, but had "no doubt" it would "look better" than previous ones, citing strengthened labor and environmental provisions.

"The question is how much better," said Murphy. "And I don't know yet if it's good enough for those of us who have opposed deals in the past."

The most conservative wing of the republican base is the most opposed to this. The 'tea party' republicans in the House will be key to defeating fast track.

[Romulox]

5. LOL. Thanks for being self-parodying. It makes things much easier. nt

[stillwaiting]

7. House Democrats deciding to buck the President will be key to defeating Fast Track.

All we need are a few reactionary assholes siding with us (i.e. the Grand Bargain) and Fast Track might not be approved. And as with the Grand Bargain, I don't care how the legislation gets defeated. I just want it to fail.

So, both contingents ultimately are key. Fast Track will be approved if either part of that strange bedfellows coalition folds.

[RiverLover]

8. There are repubs in the House planning on voting ag fast track? Teabaggers? Which ones?

May 13, 2015

WASHINGTON — Top House GOP leaders were confident Wednesday that Congress will renew "fast track" trade promotion authority despite an early defeat in the U.S. Senate.

"I'm still optimistic that the Senate will figure out how to deal with this," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters, "They're having a little bump in the road over there, but at the end of the day, I think there's a majority in the House and Senate for giving this president trade promotion authority."

Senate leaders announced Wednesday afternoon that they would try again Thursday to begin debate on the trade bill.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/13/house-gop-leaders-tpa-fast-track/27236059/

[pampango]

10. "At least 60 House Republicans are expected to vote against the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority) bill

Boehner and President Obama would need at least 30 House Democrats to negate the Republican opposition, and so far, they are far short of their goal.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/11/tpp-fast-track-failure-opposition-bill-remains-united.html

There are repubs in the House planning on voting ag fast track? Teabaggers? Which ones?

The teabagger wing for sure. This letter to Obama opposing fast track was signed by Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann and many other members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House.

[Romulox]

4. The ones who post on DU claim to. nt

[99Forever]

6. Which "ones" would that be?

Or do you just do cowardly anonymous smears?

[Romulox]

9. I don't think you even know what point you are attacking.

[99Forever]

11. I know the exact attack YOU made I was questioning.

I was asking about YOU insinuating that those that YOU don't happen to agree with being Republicans.

Still confused or merely disingenuous?

[pampango]

12. Sen Chris Murphy of Connecticut (who voted NO on fast track on Tuesday & Thursday agrees with Obama

that this is the most progressive trade agreement ever. (At least he said that it looks better than previous agreements due to its 'strengthened labor and environmental provisions', which I interpret as 'progressive'.) He just does not know yet if it is 'progressive enough' to vote for.

From the OP link:

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who opposes the fast-track bill, said he had was undecided on the agreement, but had "no doubt" it would "look better" than previous ones, citing strengthened labor and environmental provisions.

"The question is how much better," said Murphy. "And I don't know yet if it's good enough for those of us who have opposed deals in the past."

[RiverLover]

13. Did he say how its strengthened for labor & environment? Because past deals were strong too, like

NAFTA, but they are not enforced at all. In fact this was one of Bill's selling points on it, and its another NAFTA fail because what good are the rules if not enforced?

I just want to know why TPP would be any different. Since it looks like it will be reality soon.

[pampango]

14. No. He seemed to think that past deals like NAFTA were not strong in labor & environment areas

but did not say why he thinks this one is "stronger". He said, "... I don't know yet if it's good enough for those of us who have opposed deals in the past."

I hope that by 'stronger' he does not mean "prettier words" but 'strongly enforced' but he did not elaborate in the article. Since he opposed past trade deals, he should know that 'pretty words' on paper about labor and the environment do not necessarily make for a 'strong' agreement.

Later in the article there is the quote "Liberal opponents to TPP claim that whether it is more progressive than previous agreements isn't the right question." That would seem to indicate that its opponents don't question so much that it is the "most progressive trade agreement" (which to me would require the best enforcement or it is not 'progressive') ever but do strongly question whether it is 'progressive' and 'different' enough to merit passage.

[Populist_Prole]

15. Funny about these 3rd-Way / Corporatist shills here

Other than on trade, they're as disgusted with the republicans as us populist/progressive DU-ers are.

When it comes to to trade, they go into "well, they can be right sometime" mode and go full-on supply-side neoliberal. some of them will try to cloak in a faux humanitarian concern for geoplolitical do-goodism as they convince us to rapidly lower our standards to meet the third-worlds slowly rising ones....exhorting the US proles to fall on a grenade or "take one for the team". "Team Earth".