Quick random thoughts on TAA/TPP
It's late, and I have to post some flower pictures, so this will be a bit scattered.
1) Have I mentioned lately what an asshole Obama is? His meeting with the House caucus didn't turn the tide on Friday, and could even have made things worse; some members came out saying he'd impugned their integrity. Welcome aboard the S.S. Lame Duck, Mr. President!
2) This is a big defeat for Pelosi, too. I wonder if there's anybody younger and hungry for a leadership role? Like Pelosi's
enemies closer close "friend" Rose DeLauro, who whipped against the TPP?
3) The "losses" in 2010 and 2014 paved the way for this victory because so many Blue Dogs got shitcanned by voters who decided they'd prefer real Republicans. The architects of the Blue Dog strategy -- Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi herself -- are still in office, but the ground on which they stand is being eaten away.
4) Yes, this really is a victory, and the left should take yes for an answer and pat itself on the back. In the nature of the case, victories are few and far between ("you lose until you win") and impermanent ("this enemy you cannot kill"). Even if we have to do it all again next Tuesday! But, really. Who would have thought?!
5) It's also not only a victory for labor -- though for once labor didn't wuss out, and treated TPP as the existential threat it is -- but for an entire network and many "unknowns" (with a special shout out to Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, who did so much of the research and framing).
6) I'm told the corporate support for this was relatively narrow -- Hollywood, Big Pharma, anybody IP-related. Most of what we need for trade, as such, we get from bilateral agreements anyhow.
7) Making one ask, if this isn't a trade bill, what is it? Well, ISDS and the material Jeff Sessions (!!!) found on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission and the "Living Agreement" clause really do make me thing the 0.01% really does want to create a post- or trans-national governing apparatus not subject to democratic controls. And if they don't get it with TPP, they'll keep trying. In some ways, the right gets it right, but wrong. For example:
General Ripper is right on "precious bodily fluids." But he's wrong on fluoridation; that should be High Fructose Corn Syrup (for example). And he's wrong that the Communists are doing it; it's corporations. Similarly, the Agenda 21 and black helicopter and Jade Helm crowd get the enemy wrong; but their sense of threat (that sense of threat, at least) is spot on.
8) In general, I get a very ancien regime feeling about all of this. A situation that seems very static can undergo a state change and become dynamic very rapidly. The left needs to be aware of that. Maybe "Lucy and the Football" isn't the game any more.
9) In overly dynamic, chaotic, situations, personal relationships do matter. We see this in the Greek negotiations, and we see it here, as Obama's general assholery catches up with him.
10) I know I pushed the loss of national sovereignty issue for two reasons: First, it has the great merit of being true on the grounds of ISDS alone, before we even get to the stuff Sessions dug up; and second, because I needed to appeal to Republican Congress critters, and the guys with beards in the woods, who skew Republican, are worried about this issue (rightly). However, I've seen no coverage of this; it's as if the press can't get their minds around unbundling issue from party. (For example, the Wall Street Journal, in its listing of key issues and talking points immediately before the vote, didn't even list ISDS. That smacks of a news blackout. So I would like to know what impact the loss of national sovereignty talking point had.
11) Finally, it's sure weird for me to be giving a shout-out to Jeff Sessions, or even going to Breitbart (ugh) because they're the only place I can go to see what the anti-TPP right is saying. Almost as weird as Drudge giving a shout-out to Pelosi....