But if Clinton had hoped to leave the trade debate behind if Fast Track failed, its success now means she may have to take a position on the trade deal itself sooner or later.
Clinton’s campaign has said that any trade deal must “put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home,” and that the U.S. should “walk away from any outcome that falls short” of that. Obviously, this leaves room for Clinton to either support or oppose the deal later.
But if we do get a TPP, the debate will shift out of the process netherworld in which the Fast Track fight unfolded, and present us with specifics that can actually be evaluated in light of the test Clinton herself has articulated. Obama has vowed that the TPP will boost labor standards in participating countries like Vietnam, leveling the global playing field for American workers. But we still don’t know what those standards will look like, and we still don’t know how compliant with them such countries will be required to be before participating in the TPP.
Meanwhile, we still don’t know what sort of “monopoly pricing power” the deal will contain for biologics, which some critics worry will amount to a giveaway to Big Pharma at the expense of global health. And we still have yet to see the details of the deal’s mechanism for resolving disputes between international investors and other participating countries — which critics worry will give a special break to corporations that is denied to workers.
Clinton’s camp is said to believe the trade debate will not create the lasting divisions among Dems that attended the Iraq debate. And some polling does indicate that there may not be rampant anger over it among Dem base voters.
But the calender here is worth considering. If a TPP deal is reached this summer, there will be months of debate over it until a Congressional vote next winter, when the primaries will be getting underway. Even if the Fast Track debate was a bitter defeat for the left, there may be another protracted opportunity to rally opposition. Bernie Sanders has already heaped scalding criticism on the deal in general, and he and other high profile Dems — such as Elizabeth Warren — will refocus their opposition on the deal’s specifics, which will finally allow us to evaluate the deal’s actual priorities. Clinton may have to address these specifics and priorities sooner or later.
Of course, if the deal is as good as Obama claims it will be, and the worst fears of the left look overblown in light of its details, Clinton may decide those specifics allow her to make a strong case for supporting it on the grounds that it comports with the test she articulated. And then things might get really interesting: we’d have a genuine Dem primary debate on our hands.
***************************************************************
* WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS IN ‘REVOLT’ AGAINST SCOTT WALKER: The New York Times reports on the tensions that have erupted between presidential candidate Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans. Republicans say his fiscal policies are tailored more to the national conservative audience than to his home state:
Lawmakers are stymied over how to pay for road and bridge repairs without raising taxes or fees, which Mr. Walker has ruled out. The governor’s fellow Republicans rejected his proposal to borrow $1.3 billion for the roadwork, arguing that adding to the state’s debt is irresponsible….The tax cuts and weakening of public sector unions have not spurred the economy enough to avoid a projected budget deficit over the coming two years.
Meanwhile, the Times notes, even as Walker goes around the country bragging about his success in crushing the left, his state (despite his reforms) lags behind its Midwestern neighbors in jobs creation.
* WALKER TO EXPAND GUN RIGHTS: The Post reports:
Walker plans to sign two new laws on Wednesday that expand the rights of gun owners by removing a 48-hour waiting period for those looking to purchase a firearm and allowing off-duty or retired police officers to carry concealed weapons at public schools. This action will come one week after a suspected gunman shot and killed nine people in an African American church in South Carolina, yet again prompting a national discussion about gun laws in the U.S.
The signing was scheduled before the shooting. But one imagines Walker’s handlers don’t mind the renewed attention to the gun debate, if indeed the goal is partly about playing to a national audience.
* ANOTHER PUSH FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS? In the wake of the Charleston shooting, Senators Joe Manchin (a Democrat) and Pat Toomey (a Republican) are now talking about renewing their push to pass an expanded gun background check bill. There has been a determined effort to forget this fact, but the last background check bill got a majority in the Senate, and was filibustered.
Of course, the GOP now controls the Senate, making the odds more remote, and at this point, such a push would probably do more to help Toomey’s reelection chances in bluish Pennsylvania than anything else.
* A SETBACK FOR DEMS ON SENATE MAP: Former Senator Kay Hagan is taking a pass on challenging vulnerable GOP Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, and Alex Roarty takes a look at the evolving situation, reporting that there may be few other Democrats willing to take him on, perhaps squandering a major pickup opportunity:
Democrats can also take solace in the fact that North Carolina was never likely to make or break a Senate majority next year. Wisconsin, Illinois, New Hampshire, Florida, and a handful of other states are all better bets for Democrats to gain the four seats they would need if they hold the presidency. But without a top candidate in a purple state like North Carolina, Democrats might not be able challenge Burr at all, and Hagan’s decision not to run may have all but erased one of Democrats’ target states from the 2016 map.
Dems would really like to make North Carolina competitive, as another sign that demographic change may be pushing this crucial presidential battleground in a bluer direction.
* DEMS TO PUSH VOTING RIGHTS FIX: The Nation’s Ari Berman reports that Senator Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Lewis will today introduce a new fix to the Voting Rights Act that was recently gutted by the Supreme Court:
The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 would compel states with a well-documented history of recent voting discrimination to clear future voting changes with the federal government, require federal approval for voter ID laws, and outlaw new efforts to suppress the growing minority vote….The 2016 election will be the first in 50 years where voters will not have the full protections of the VRA, which adds urgency to the congressional effort.
This should provide an interesting backdrop to the voting wars, which Clinton has signaled she’ll engage aggressively in the context of 2016 by calling for universal, automatic registration.
* AN OBAMACARE DYNAMIC WORTH WATCHING: The Hill reports that Congressional Republicans are giving rave reviews to Health and Human Services secretary Sylvia Burwell:
“I would consider her one of Obama’s very best Cabinet members,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who oversees the department’s budget process. “She could give lessons to the president about how to work with Congress.”
Well, then! Will Republicans enter into real negotiations over a fix to subsidies — in which both sides would make real, workable concessions — if the Supreme Court invalidates them?
* AND RAMPANT JINDAL-MANIA GRIPS AMERICA!!! Ending months of speculation that had millions of Americans trembling on the edge of their seats with anticipation, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is expected to announced today that he’ll run for president.
Look for Jindal to vie for far-right voters by demanding that Republicans refuse to spend a penny to keep Obamacare subsidies going if the Court guts them, and by vowing to keep up the crusade against a Court ruling declaring a national same-sex marriage right.