They do seem to spend a remarkable amount of time laughing for people who have no discernible sense of humor.
Barack Obama and Bill Clinton both had ties to big banks. Then there’s Joe Lieberman.
Is the party in general pro-corporate? Nah.
Are some high-profile Democrats big business tools? Yes, some are.
Booker is a centrist Democrat who has often been accused of being a Republican-lite. He’s also a politician, nothing really special about him. He’ll do and say what he has to do to win the nomination, and if he wins the Presidency he’ll probably be quite capable, probably better than Obama, and better than Clinton would have been, since he doesn’t have any scandal we know of tarnishing him.
Yeah, Booker’s a nice guy. He just doesn’t feel like a leftish reformer.
After 2 to 4 years of Trump, a competent centrist will look pretty good.
At T minus five days, pretty damn good.
Trump has roundly criticized the pharmaceutical industry and got quoted approvingly by Bernie Sanders when he presented this Amendment.
Good grief.
I have no desire to see Booker run for the Presidency, and less desire to imagine him winning.
Not a fan.
That said, if the Democrats are going to regard this specific vote as disqualifying, or even a strong negative, they are going to purify themselves right out of business. There were perfectly legitimate reasons to take either side of this question.
What I have seen of Booker on TV is that he tries to be Obama Secunda and fails miserably.
Obama had charisma like few politicians ever. He was mesmerizing. Booker looks like your Physics teacher.
I wish we’d get better political reporting, and while I’m at it, I wish we’d all stop rotely buying the inaccurate bullshit that does get reported.
First, there was no “bill” voted on regarding the foreign sourcing of prescription drugs. It was an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill - the Senate Concurrent Resolution (Sen.Con.Res.3)
Second, the amendment, unlike a couple of earlier amendments that had either been withdrawn or ruled out of order (SA 172 and SA 175, respectively), listed only Canada but no other nations.
Third, as you can see by the text of the amendment quoted below, it did not (and could not, as an amendment to a budget reconciliation, which doesn’t itself get signed into law) establish any new policy for government spending, but instead allowed the Chairman of the Senate budget committee the discretion to revise allocations of otherwise approved government expenditures on prescription drugs to include Canadian sources. Of course, that Chairman (Sen. Mike Enzi, R-WY)) voted against the amendment and would not have used that discretion to purchase from Canada if the amendment had passed.
Fourth, consequently the amendment was a little game of “try and make the Republicans pay a political price.” Some Republican senators weren’t buying the premise, and some Democratic senators weren’t playing the game.
And none of this says anything about Corey Booker’s commitment to prescription drug price reduction. Introduce an actual bill to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, and see if Booker votes for it. (Kinda think he would. Duh.) But that would be a real attempt at progress instead of a progressive purity test, so a Yes vote wouldn’t get Booker any positive cred any way, would it?
By the way, this whole “Booker sells out progressives/is in the pocket of Big Pharma and Wall St.” effort seems like an early ratfuck program against a probable future Dem Presidential nominee.
Maybe it’s just me. But it might be wise to practice some healthy skepticism for accusations singling out particular political figures for particular inconsequential votes or speech excerpts or casual associations. Because haven’t we seen that kinda thing enough to know it for what it is yet?
Booker’s record as a non-progressive, Blue Dog type is pretty well established though. That’s not an attack, just an observation of which wing of the party he’s a part of. He and Clinton are two peas in a pod in that fashion, although Booker has no record of scandal.
Booker also probably reassembles the Obama coalition but bigger(since it will be eight years since Obama’s last election), plus Booker comes in with more experience and an actual record of government reform. Booker COULD be much of what Obama merely sold himself as. Of course, Booker still has politicians’ disease, an unwillingness to let anyone know where he really stands on anything until it’s to his advantage. This is a guy who had Larry Wilmore throw all the teabags at him for trying to claim he doesn’t want to be President.
Wrong on most counts. I’d like a citation for “non-progressive, Blue Dog type” because that’s really far off the actual track record for both HRC and Cory Booker. What scorecard(s) are you using?
Progressive Punch gives Booker a “lifetime” score of 97.99, not as progressive as, say Elizabeth Warren (99.13), but a whole hell of a lot higher than any recognized “Blue Dog”. Joe Manchin (72.92) he ain’t.
No, he’s no Jon Manchin, but a lot depends on how you score votes. Plus there’s more to him than his Senate record, there’s also his mayoral record to consider.
Then make that case, with citations. Otherwise, your complaint* is just another baseless insinuation of impure motives and improper ideology. The same sort of agitprop stones cast at Hillary Clinton by too many ‘useful idiot’ leftists who didn’t bother to find out whether there was any truth at all to the aspersions.
*I use the term “complaint” guardedly, in awareness that you, adaher, aren’t commenting from a progressive perspective in the first place. You’re just helping to build up a narrative about Booker for a future battalion of progressive purists.
It will be interesting to see whether Booker says anything when Betsy Devos, Trump’s nominee for Education Secretary, has her confirmation hearing, and also how he votes on her confirmation. Booker has been a major proponent of school choice in Newark, where charter schools expanded rapidly while he was mayor. He touted charters as a necessary means of giving poor students educational opportunity. Devos is also a big supporter of charter schools, so this may help us determine whether Booker is still willing to break with the left.
If Booker plays this one right, he may realize his dream of becoming an education trailblazer across party lines. Can anyone reasonably deny how well BASIS, for instance, is doing in Arizona?
I can deny having the slightest idea what you are talking about. I cannot deny harboring dark suspicion as to why you are trying to shoe-horn the “charter school” stuff into the conversation. Further, I wonder if you realized, picking your username, that it anagrams to “moran”?
Well, ‘luc’, part A (“what you’re talking about”) seems to be referencing a wedge that’s already being heavily worked between Booker and most progressives: as Mayor of Newark, he was very open to charter schools and different forms of vouchers. The context there is that the Newark school district has been under NJ state control for nigh on 20 years due to academic performance. Booker was (and is still open to) trying any methods that might work to improve the schools, advantage the students and/or raise academic outcomes. Congruently, Booker was and is open to miscellaneous avenues for increased funding of public education. I can’t really see any evidence that he is or was ever a school privatization advocate.
Part B might be that the post is an attempt to work that wedge further into the narrative, or it might be that the poster is an education professional or a charter schools booster or any other honest interested party who wants to comment. If I were a better person, that would be my default stance, but I agree that in the context of this thread it’s an abrupt insertion of an otherwise tangential subject.
Part C… ronam anagrams more closely to “manor”. It’s a straight reversal.
I am pleased to reassure that you are not. Groovy.