Drudge rips GOP leadership: ‘Night of the Republican suicide’

[mystery-ak]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/23/matt-drudge-rips-gop-leadership-night-of-the-repub/print/

Drudge rips GOP leadership: ‘Night of the Republican suicide’
By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Saturday, May 23, 2015

Media giant Matt Drudge blasted Republican leadership on Twitter Friday night after the GOP-led Senate approved a new free trade bill.

"Twisted DC: Electing Republicans is guarantee of MORE powers for Obama... of course none of them read 'secret' bill!" Mr. Drudge tweeted.

The Drudge Report founder slammed House Speaker John Boehner who expressed support for the bill after the Pacific trade bill passed the Senate.

"Disrespect for voters is staggering. Boehner will not make public 'most important' trade deal in history? Hides behind 'classified' status..," Mr. Drudge tweeted.

"BOEHNER: We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...," another tweet reads.

Calling it the "night of the Republican suicide," Mr. Drudge said a GOP loss in 2016 could be "traced to tonight's trade deception."

The Senate voted 62-37 Friday to endorse the president's request for more negotiation authority. The bill would let Mr. Obama present trade agreements that Congress can either ratify or reject, but not change.

[alicewonders]

Once again, Congress has sold us down the river.  But we'll be beseeched to vote for these Republicans again in 2016 because this will be "the most important election of our lifetime".  It sure will - but the GOP has not shown that they have what it takes to fix what is in dire need of fixing. 

Maybe I'm missing something. 

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Once again, Congress has sold us down the river.  But we'll be beseeched to vote for these Republicans again in 2016 because this will be "the most important election of our lifetime".  It sure will - but the GOP has not shown that they have what it takes to fix what is in dire need of fixing. 

Maybe I'm missing something. 

 

Limbaugh and Drudge are against the bill, but Ted Cruz supports it.

Politics are rarely, if ever, black and white.

[alicewonders]

Limbaugh and Drudge are against the bill, but Ted Cruz supports it.

Politics are rarely, if ever, black and white.

Minds might be changed if people were allowed to know what is in the bill.  Why the transparency?  I confess, I do not understand the dynamics going on with this - liberals are against Obama and many conservatives are in agreement with him.  That alone sets off alarms with me. 

[sinkspur]

The GOP has supported every trade bill since 1993. The Democrats have not, citing union objections.

For all the bellyaching the Dems do about "lost jobs," they are all in on unlimited immigration and amnesty for those here. Objecting to trade bills, which have been good for economic growth even though they've brought some job displacement, is nothing but a cover for dying unions.

We live in a global economy, like it or not. Protectionism and silly tariffs are anachronisms and simply won't work in the 21st century.

[240B]

There were many Republicans who ran on voting against the crybaby Boehner.

And then, as soon as they got elected they refused to do it.

For so many politicians, getting elected at any cost is the goal. After that, forget about it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The GOP has supported every trade bill since 1993. The Democrats have not, citing union objections.

For all the bellyaching the Dems do about "lost jobs," they are all in on unlimited immigration and amnesty for those here. Objecting to trade bills, which have been good for economic growth even though they've brought some job displacement, is nothing but a cover for dying unions.

We live in a global economy, like it or not. Protectionism and silly tariffs are anachronisms and simply won't work in the 21st century.

Yeah...

What he said!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The GOP has supported every trade bill since 1993. The Democrats have not, citing union objections.

For all the bellyaching the Dems do about "lost jobs," they are all in on unlimited immigration and amnesty for those here. Objecting to trade bills, which have been good for economic growth even though they've brought some job displacement, is nothing but a cover for dying unions.

We live in a global economy, like it or not. Protectionism and silly tariffs are anachronisms and simply won't work in the 21st century.

Good post.

[DCPatriot]

The GOP has supported every trade bill since 1993. The Democrats have not, citing union objections.

For all the bellyaching the Dems do about "lost jobs," they are all in on unlimited immigration and amnesty for those here. Objecting to trade bills, which have been good for economic growth even though they've brought some job displacement, is nothing but a cover for dying unions.

We live in a global economy, like it or not. Protectionism and silly tariffs are anachronisms and simply won't work in the 21st century.

   Love your attitude and intellect, Sink!   

[Paladin]

It's not a question of supporting or not supporting a trade bill. It's a question of not knowing what is in this trade bill and, secondarily, Republicans surrendering to Obama  (Obama!) more of their legislative power.

I want just one of the TPP advocates on here to tell us what is in that bill, how he knows what's in it, and why he supports it. I said elsewhere it may be the greatest trade bill in the history of mankind but how would anyone know? As someone said on Twitter:"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Other than some vague commitment to "free trade" what it you supporters are supporting?

[240B]

It has been said for many years now that Boehner is in Obama's pocket, and so are the Republicans.

We have done it. We have reached one party rule of government. This is what one party rule looks like. Republicans, especially under Boehner, are a joke.

It is done. It is over. It is just a matter of time now until whatever is left of what used to be America is no more.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's not a question of supporting or not supporting a trade bill. It's a question of not knowing what is in this trade bill and, secondarily, Republicans surrendering to Obama  (Obama!) more of their legislative power.

I want just one of the TPP advocates on here to tell us what is in that bill, how he knows what's in it, and why he supports it. I said elsewhere it may be the greatest trade bill in the history of mankind but how would anyone know? As someone said on Twitter:"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Other than some vague commitment to "free trade" what it you supporters are supporting?

Fair point.

But then, and by the same token, what is it that those opposed to it object to?

[Paladin]

But then, and by the same token, what is it that those opposed to it object to?

How about not knowing what's in it? Make it public so an intelligent assessment can be made by the public of its provisions (isn't it our government?).

Once again supporters: why the secrecy?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

How about not knowing what's in it? Make it public so an intelligent assessment can be made by the public of its provisions (isn't it our government?).

Once again supporters: why the secrecy?

To protect the negotiations.  If the details are released, someone or some groups could find ways to tank the negotiations at home or in the countries we are negotiating with.

or maybe it is because Obama and the GOP have teamed up to destroy America.

[Oceander]

What a bunch of xenophobic short-sighted idiots.  I can't figure out who's enjoying this the most:  Obama, who clearly is very good at playing rope-a-dope with the hapless Republicans, or the Chinese, who will be ecstatic if (when?) the US voluntarily shuts itself out of the Pacific.

Here's the stupidest thing:  the primary beneficiary of this power would be the next president, not the Idiot-in-Chief.

[Paladin]

Sarcasm duly noted Once-Ler, but the truth of the matter is those who are supporting the TPP have no idea what they are supporting, which is a bit odd. I have seen this referred to as the largest and most ambitious trade agreement ever proposed. Given that, I would like to know a great bit more as to what we are committing ourselves. Is that unreasonable? Supporting it without knowing what it contains is what strikes me as unreasonable, not asking for greater information.

I am also very dubious when it comes to its major proponent, Barack Obama, and dislike very much the idea of giving him any additional power at the expense of Congress.

The Imperial Presidency marches on.

[Paladin]

Well, Oceander, I'm happy to see you aren't making this personal:

What a bunch of xenophobic short-sighted idiots.

I can't speak for anyone else but I am not persuaded asking for more information is either xenophobic or idiocy. Not having any idea what the TPP actually contains yet supporting it may qualify as the latter, but not asking for greater information.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Sarcasm duly noted Once-Ler, but the truth of the matter is those who are supporting the TPP have no idea what they are supporting, which is a bit odd. I have seen this referred to as the largest and most ambitious trade agreement ever proposed. Given that, I would like to know a great bit more as to what we are committing ourselves. Is that unreasonable? Supporting it without knowing what it contains is what strikes me as unreasonable, not asking for greater information.

I am also very dubious when it comes to its major proponent, Barack Obama, and dislike very much the idea of giving him any additional power at the expense of Congress.

The Imperial Presidency marches on.

Some issues of trade and national security can only be furthered with the aid of secrecy.  I trust the Republicans who voted aye.  You do not.  It is not unreasonable to ask for transparency in government.  It is unreasonable to expect it in all cases.  In this case the secrecy is necessary.   

[Paladin]

I trust the Republicans who voted aye.  You do not.

That's right, I don't, and the pusillanimous conduct of the Republicans since 2010 gives me no reason to think otherwise (see post #5 on this very thread).

I do, however, know two things: (1) you have no idea what it is you are supporting; and (2) the TPP is a done deal, negotiated and everything. So just what harm would occur if the American people were to know just what they are being subjected to? Earlier you said (post #13):

If the details are released, someone or some groups could find ways to tank the negotiations at home or in the countries we are negotiating with.

So? Is this thing so above analysis and criticism we Americans have to blindly accept it because our betters do? And, btw, how do you know anyone could possibly "tank" the concluded negotiations since you don't even know what's in it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, Oceander, I'm happy to see you aren't making this personal:
I can't speak for anyone else but I am not persuaded asking for more information is either xenophobic or idiocy. Not having any idea what the TPP actually contains yet supporting it may qualify as the latter, but not asking for greater information.

There is nothing in the Constitution that obligates the Executive or Congress to make public the text or substance of any proposed treaty, or for them to seek approval of the polity in general. It is entirely possible that the people supporting it are fully aware of everything that's in the bill, but they want to avoid the bill becoming just another political football to be tossed around on the field of public opinion so they're not being very forthcoming about it.

Like it or not, we vote to send people to DC and do things, not to go there and wait for us to tell them what to do. We then get to either send them back, or send someone else.

That's it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's right, I don't, and the pusillanimous conduct of the Republicans since 2010 gives me no reason to think otherwise (see post #5 on this very thread).

I do, however, know two things: (1) you have no idea what it is you are supporting; and (2) the TPP is a done deal, negotiated and everything. So just what harm would occur if the American people were to know just what they are being subjected to? Earlier you said (post #13):
So? Is this thing so above analysis and criticism we Americans have to blindly accept it because our betters do? And, btw, how do you know anyone could possibly "tank" the concluded negotiations since you don't even know what's in it?

We don't live under a direct democracy system of government.

[Dexter]

It is absurd to say we shouldn't know what's in the trade agreement because people might try to sabotage it somehow. It's a secret because they know a majority of Americans would oppose it.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ Limbaugh and Drudge are against the bill, but Ted Cruz supports it. ]]

Frankly, I doubt that Ted Cruz (who I happen to like) even knows half of what is IN that bill.

As conservatives, we have have had it drilled into us (by the GOPe with support from the Chamber-of-Commerce brigade and big business) that ANYTHING labeled "free trade" is good for the nation.

Hmmm, well... ok.
But is not the essence of "free"+"trade" the open exchange of commerce and ideas?

If it's anything even close to that, why must a bill that purportedly promotes it be "classified" and any free and open discussion of its merits banned?

There's something in it (perhaps numerous "somethings") that the powers-that-be feel is so radioactive that such discussions must be prevented, hence the bill will be in danger of failing if such items became public knowledge too soon.

We've been through this before with the ACA, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi.

I don't care WHO "supports" it.

It is not the nature of a republican form of government supposedly based upon the bedrock of freedom to promulgate legislation like this, for any purpose other than the explicit needs of national security.

I seriously doubt there is anything in this bill that serves to promote such security.
Quite the contrary, I sense there is stuff in it that will weaken same.

Alice is completely right above.

Months and months ago in this forum, before the election, I predicted that the behaviour of the Pubbies in the first six months after they won would determine who wins the election in 2016.

Like this secret bill, the Republicans are ragin' down the fast track!

[240B]

What difference does it make?

Vote Democrat, vote Republican, who cares?

They are all the same thing. And they are all in it together.

Should I paint my living room White? or off White?

Either way it ends up the same.

[Dexter]

What difference does it make?

Vote Democrat, vote Republican, who cares?

They are all the same thing. And they are all in it together.

Should I paint my living room White? or off White?

Either way it ends up the same.

 

Third parties don't work because we've been convinced that they can't.