Posted on 05/04/2015 2:30:40 AM PDT by Din Maker
The big threat to Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t coming from a competitor. It’s coming from an issue. And it’s coming now, long before the first primary. Will she be for or against giving President Barack Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals?
Fast track gives a president the power to make trade deals that cannot be amended by Congress. All Congress can do is accept or reject the agreement. Other countries, say fast-track supporters, won’t negotiate with Washington if they know that Congress can amend any deal they agree to.
Obama’s problem is with Democrats. They are horrified by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They see it as a job killer, like the North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993 under President Bill Clinton. A powerful coalition of labor unions, progressives, environmentalists and Latino organizations opposes the new trade agreement. That’s the Democratic Party base.
See Hillary Clinton’s problem? If she supports fast track, it will inflame liberals who will hound her over it all through the primaries. It may even propel a challenge from her left. If she opposes fast track, she will enrage the Obama administration and get blamed if he suffers an embarrassing defeat. She will also tick off Wall Street and risk losing their campaign contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
I see a complete melt down coming. . .
The lose-lose choice I’d like to see for Hillary is whether to volunteer for latrine duty or stay in her cell all day.
I think the article exaggerates the downside for the witch in coming out against free trade. The downside is very real for her to come out for free trade.
Of course she’ll oppose the measure. I’m surprised she hasn’t already.
They also left out constitutional conservatives who are opposed to the invasion of the US and want US jobs for US workers. The Republicans who campaigned to support us on this issue might fail to do so AGAIN.
I agree. Her foundation will get just as many billions. Seems to me if China benefits from this, they will just funnel money through Bill who seemed to have a few Chinese friends back in the day.
If a trade agreement must be “negotiated,” that means it’s a giant racket. It means the negotiators in Loserstan and the negotiators in Obamastan are both receiving massive bribes from their respective business communities.
An actual free trade agreement should be one page long, and should consist of a single sentence: “There shall be free trade between Loserstan and Obamastan.”
Anything else is a criminal racket.
The big threat to Hillary Clinton's campaign isn't coming from a competitor. It's coming from an issue. And it's coming now, long before the first primary. Will she be for or against giving President Barack Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals?Not a peep out of al-Reuters regarding her criminality and corruption? What a surprise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.