Convenient don’t you think. He now knows it will pass without him so he changes his stance.
This has always been about backroom deals and if he didn’t see that from the beginning....
Bottom line is he can now vote the way the callers have demanded he vote. I’ve always said I want to know how they’ll vote if it’s a tie. I now know on this politician.
Flame away.
Actually, his initial vote on this was a lot less relavant as it passed by a much more comfortable margin. He could easily have voted against it on the previous pass, and not had anything to worry about.
I think he's genuinely a free trader (probably too much so for my personal tastes), that thinks TPA is a tool the president should have at his disposal.
I think it would have been somewhat hypocritcal for him to have voted against TPA legislation, then as President, as for the same thing he'd opposed. This, despite what he knew were going to be negative consequences, as is often the case, when a complex issue comes up and folks on both sides try to reduce it to a bumper sticker.
I generally support free trade if it's not one-sided, but would require any such treaty to be called what it is (a treaty - not a "trade agreement") so it would require the Constitutional 2/3 vote to be implemented.
For that reason, I'd have opposed this legislation, not because of some of it's other provisions, like the requirement for up/down vote without amendments.
I think all the name-calling surrounding this entire issue is counter-productive to reasoned discussion. This issue cannot be reduced to a bumper sticker on either side.