Hillary Clinton Flip Flopped On TPP Before, So Big Business Lobbyists Are Confident She'll Really Flip Back After Election

from the politics! dept

Isn't politics just great? Politicians aren't exactly known for their honesty on things, often saying things to voters just to get elected. But Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have received quite a lot of scrutiny. After all, while she was at the State Department, she was a strong supporter of the TPP, and so it was a bit of a surprise last October when she came out against it. Of course, the fact that the deal is fairly unpopular with the Democratic Party base probably contributed quite a lot to that decision -- and Clinton's weak attempt at revisionist history to pretend she never really supported it.

But, of course, when you do a pandering flip flop like that just to get votes, you have to remember that plenty of people will see right through it, and some of those people might reveal the strategy. Like, for instance, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest lobbying organization, who is leading the charge in support of the TPP. Its top lobbyist, Tom Donohue, flat out admitted recently that he knows that if she actually got elected, she'll revert back to supporting the TPP, because of course she will:
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.
The same report notes that Congress is now likely to wait until after the election, but before the new Congress starts (i.e., the "lame duck" session) to vote to ratify the TPP in order to keep it from impacting the Presidential election:
Donohue also said TPP will not be voted on prior to the election because Senate Republicans do not want to do anything that could jeopardize Republican Senators in close races. But he said he believed there was a 75 percent chance that TPP would get done in the lame-duck session after the election.
This very likely is the strategy that the Chamber has cooked up and which Congress thinks makes sense, but, really, doesn't it just highlight how bad the TPP really is? If Congress can't convince the public that it's worth voting for when everyone's actually watching, then doesn't that suggest a really serious issue with the agreement itself? In many ways, this seems like an extension of the former USTR's defense of the secrecy around the TPP, where he admitted that if the public actually knew what was going into the TPP it would stop it from ever getting approved. So his decision was to hide it. And now, it seems likely that plenty of politicians are basically doing the same -- hide the TPP until the public isn't looking or can't really do anything, and then shove it through.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 1:05pm

    The fix is in...

    in other words.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 1:06pm

    Oh Please...

    A lying politician and an entire base of voters intellectually dishonest and or dumb enough to keep keep buying anything this politician is a tell all to how bad things have become.

    Most politicians right or left would get up to the mic today... screech and scream about how bad it is, take a bribe/kickback/pork/rider and vote in-favor of it tomorrow.

    Hillary is a living monument to corrupt politics!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Alien Rebel (profile), 1 Feb 2016 @ 1:53pm

    The Mind of a Brook Trout

    Ah, the American voter. They know of Hillary's speaking fees, the superPAC money, have some suspicions about the Clinton political machine, know of the media's complicity-- like a brook trout sees the hook, right there, glinting in the sunlight. But hey, those feathers kinda sorta look yummy, so here goes nuthin', . .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 1:55pm

    because Penny Pritzker

    "TPP" stands for "Trust Penny Pritzger".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker

    "national finance chair of President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008"

    Obama has no choice; TPP is payback for PP's early support.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 2:02pm

    I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, that a self-centered, pathological manipulative liar would lie to and manipulate me to get what she wanted!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    davebarnes (profile), 1 Feb 2016 @ 2:24pm

    Duh

    Of course she will.
    Why is this "news"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 3:15pm

    I wonder why they could possibly believe that. She's generally such a trustworthy person.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-liar-frequently-word-hillary-clinton/story?id=33361629

    Or could it possibly be because they think she can be BOUGHT? No, I'm sure those tens of millions of dollars thrown at her don't influence her decision one bit. Those wealthy guys who made billions just like to throw their money away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 3:17pm

    No revelation here. The woman will say or do whatever it is it takes to get elected. Just like all election (or as some call the Silly Season) years, politicians promise the moon only to keep it for themselves after it's all over with.

    Remember hope and change? We hoped and the only thing that changed was for the worst. Most transparent administration? Yeah it was transparent in how much they wished to keep hidden.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2016 @ 5:21pm

    And herein lies the problem with voting for a person rather than issues. Those in government should, within reason, do what their constituents want - not what their donor puppet masters want.

    With this silly system they can and do promise the world and then predictably not deliver upon said goal (that they never intended to meet).
    Rinse and repeat.
    Very few of them give a shit what their constituents want.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 1 Feb 2016 @ 6:10pm

    Justice for All

    I'm sorry, but after the issues with Hillary Clinton lost all rights due to her having failed the American public by putting our nation at risk with her use of electronic communications and storage. She will not be tried by the courts or a jury of her peers. That would not be justice, instead. She will probably end up in a holding cell in some foreign country for the next 80 life times. Isn't that the American Government way. I feel that the NSA also needs to apologize to the American public for failing to identify her actions and ending it sooner. After all, if they have time to look at my dick pics online. They should have time to look over individuals who have access to incredibly important information which is vital to our nations security.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 1 Feb 2016 @ 7:06pm

    Clinton != morals/ethics

    Remember about someone who is only interested in power for her benefit. She will lie, cheat, steal, sell secrets, whatever if she thinks it will get her power.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 1 Feb 2016 @ 7:06pm

    Clinton != morals/ethics

    Remember about someone who is only interested in power for her benefit. She will lie, cheat, steal, sell secrets, whatever if she thinks it will get her power.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David E.H. Smith, 1 Feb 2016 @ 8:32pm

    TPP & ISDS; An Opportunity for Citizens to Sue Global Corporate Economy & their Governments

    TPP & ISDS; An Opportunity for Citizens to Sue Global Corporate Economy & their Governments, or, The Death of Democracy & Sovereignty?
    Is ‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada, et al, ‘unnecessarily’ delaying the TPP, CETA, et al?

    * Did Canada ‘forget’ to tell TPP Trade Partners & their citizens Liable for Compensation in The W.A.D. Accord?

    * What happened to new Canadian PM Trudeau’s (Corporate Canada East) promise to read, understand, share his understanding of TPP with consultation & questions from the taxpayers? Have Trudeau & Freeland even read the TPP?

    * But, Under what Circumstances would Native Canadians consider helping non-Native Canadians, et al, to Co-Sue the Federal Government & Corporate Canada, et al, for Deprivation of Due Diligence Info, besides Ending the ‘Designer Racism’ & other considerations?
    The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a double edged sword; that is...depending upon how one looks at it. That is to say that some have suggested that the ISDS & the global corporate treaties/'arrangements' is a death sentence for democracy & the sovereignty of nations, while others look at it as an opportunity to challenge, learn, clarify, modify, re-interpret, &/or, reject the treaties/'arrangements' based upon the grounds that they are un-ethical, immoral, &/or, legally unconscionable.

    However, one of the problems of ISDS is due to the fact that there is, as of yet, no tried & acceptable 'official' means whereby the harmless citizens of the European Union & non-Native Canadians, et al, can sue the government of Canada (or, their EU governments), or Corporate Canada/European Union for throwing in their, the governments', support with, & for, Corporate Canada & its global corporate associates at the expense of the harmless taxpayers without recourse & appeals.

    And, while it may be regrettable that the harmless Canadians taxpayers have been conditioned, &/or, lead to be believe, that 'their opposing' political parties & 'their' sine cure senate (ie. upper house) has protected them & will continue to protect them from litigious economic bullies & enemies, both; foreign & domestic, they, the 'harmless' citizens, are continuing to be told that it is the nature of 'their' true democracy(ies) that by voting with an informed opinion for the party of 'their choice', they, the citizens of Canada, et al, are exercising their right to let their politicians make informed choices on their, the harmless voters', behalf.

    Clearly, the governments of Canada, the European Union, et al, have put themselves in the position, &/or, are preparing to put themselves in the position, of a conflict of interest by siding with the associates of the global corporate economy, and thus, the governments have made themselves unable to defend the rights of their citizens in matters concerning the aforementioned corporations and, the government itself. And, therefore, can a reasonable person conclude that the governments are succeeding in putting themselves & the global corporations above the laws of its citizens & into the hands of their own courts/tribunals (ie. the 'Death-Star-Chamber') where the only guilty parties, their citizens, have been predetermined by way of the agreements (ie. the treaties/'arrangements') prior to the ISDS tribunals' 'litigations'?

    The problem seems to be that Canadians & the citizens of the EU, et al, may be just unaccustomed to, &/or, unaware of how to challenge/confront
    'their' governments in a manner similar to which Native Canadians have, &, are continuing to utilize, very successfully. The successful challenges of the Canadian government's laws continues to demonstrate the basic unfairness of decisions that are un-ethical, immoral, &/or, only marginally legal, etc. And, by failing to challenge these laws, &/or, those that are intended to render laws 'unappeal-able', it enables Corporate Canada & its global associates to further their control of the due diligence information & to close the access door to Corporate Canada's power & the power of its global corporate associates.

    In conclusion, here are 5 important points for the citizens of Canada & the EU, et al, to consider regarding the treaties/'arrangements' that they may feel have been, or, are being, foisted upon them;
    …Cont’d; DEHS…

    1) under what circumstances would Native Canadians consider co-suing the government of Canada & Corporate Canada with the citizens of the EU, non-Native citizens of Canada, et al, regarding the lack of consultation & the deprivation of the due diligence information (eg. The Compensation in The W.A.D. Accord) by the Canadian government, et al?

    2) A) in order to level the playing field between:
    the citizens of Canada, the EU, et al,
    and
    Corporate Canada & Corporate EU,
    how much of your tax dollars (ie. as a tax deduction) do you deem necessary to put towards the suing of the government of Canada, et al, & Corporate Canada, et al, as per 'The Submission' to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA:
    ‘The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, China, Canada, the EU, the Trans -Pacific nations, et al
    v.
    the (harmless) Canadian NON-shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al’
    &
    'The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, To be Sued'?
    &/or,

    2) B) who would you prefer to have as the litigation funder* of the suit (see the aforementioned 'Submission') against the primary beneficiaries of the Canada-EU CETAgreement by the harmless citizens?

    3) what constitutes a 'good corporate citizen' in the context of those corporations which are trying to dump their liabilities onto the 'harmless'
    citizens (ie. tort abolishment lead by U.S. corporations) of the sovereign nations that the corporations would like to operate in?

    4) what constitutes a 'fair' treaty, or, agreement for the citizens that host the 'good corporate citizens', ie. would it be preferable for the citizens of the signatory treaties/'arrangements' if the disputing corporations would only be able to sue each other in the open courts of the sovereign nations that they would like to operate in
    &
    where the parties in a dispute have the responsibility for finding and presenting evidence particularly if the evidence exposes some of the unethical, &/or, illegal practices/'arrangements' that exist in the inter-relationships between the Corporations that are presently based in Canada, their lobbyists, the executives of the parties & 'our' politicians, et al?

    and

    5) the harmless citizens of Canada & the EU might seriously consider asking the new PM of Canada, Justin Trudeau & the president of the Liberal Party, Anna Gainey, have they even read the CETA & the other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’ and whether he understands it (competency) & is Trudeau willing to answer the taxpayers’ humble questions (sincerity) after ‘we’, the citizens, have had an opportunity to understand its financial significance to our families’ incomes with the assistance of our trade/economic lawyers?
    That is to say, the citizens of the signatory nations might consider asking whether 'their' politicians should have to sully their ‘beliefs’ & sales pitches with ‘sordid’ facts that come from actually reading & understanding global treaties/’arrangements’?

    Regardless, what happened to the new Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's (Corporate Canada East) promises to read, understand, share his understanding of TPP with consultation & questions from the citizens of Canada regarding the treaties, both; 'domestic' (ie. First Nations) & foreign (ie. global corporate) especially about how Native & non-Natives Canadians to pay much more for Corporate Canada’s liabilities by reducing transfer payments, services for health (more exacerbation toward privatization) & education, et al?

    By way of closing, I look forward to reading about the readers' thoughts, questions, feelings, improvements, etc. regarding the above. For more information regarding the basis for the aforementioned co-suing of the relevant governments & associates of the global corporate economy, I can be contacted at davidehsmith.wordpress.com

    David E.H. Smith
    - Researcher
    - 'Qui tam...'

    * litigation funder; Who is the 'coveted' foreign investor who said:
    It's not that we are racist in our dealings with Canadians, it's just that we can't stand the way that you suck-up to us.
    *** To access 'The MERKEL Letter' & Excerpts of 'The Submission’, see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com *** For the FULL ‘Submission’, see; The SUPREME COURT of CANADA. *** Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 1 Feb 2016 @ 10:37pm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2016 @ 5:04am

    I suspect the large denomination bribes they give her will ensure that she does.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2016 @ 5:05am

    If you want to see Hillary flip/flop like a fish out of water...

    ...go to YouTube and search for videos on her view of going into Iraq for WMDs. There are news clips where her, Kerry, Biden and other Dems all support going in. Then a few years later they all say they would not have supported going in with Hillary stating that she would not have gone in if she had been the President. I know all politicians are at least a little dishonest, but how this lady is the front runner for the Dems is a sad statement on this country. Nevermind her main competitor is an avowed socialist. We are well and truly screwed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2016 @ 7:49am

      Re: If you want to see Hillary flip/flop like a fish out of water...

      Add to that Donald Dick and let the boning commence!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2016 @ 6:58am

    The people against anti-consumer laws like TPP are just a loud minority. The only advantage they have is that they're just louder than everyone else and, because there are so few of them, it's easier for them to organize. That's why they matter in elections so much and that's why they can protest in mass amounts. Those in favor of anti-consumer laws are too plentiful to organize a protest or to organize their agenda or to organize their voting efforts.

    Yes, that's it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MadAsASnake (profile), 2 Feb 2016 @ 7:23am

    It's not so much a flip flop, as the ability to hold multiple contradictory opinions on the same topic. All they need to do is trot out the one that is most convenient at the time. It's a talent many politicians have.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dead Man Walking, 2 Feb 2016 @ 12:49pm

    Good GOD Y'all

    They SOLD US Nuclear secrets to the FUCKING CHINESE GOVERNMENT. What in the HELL ARE we Debating Here?????

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 2 Feb 2016 @ 8:54pm

    "Jane, you disgusting slut!"

    Sorry, but I love that line from Dan Ackroyd on SNL. It seemed apropos.
    So his decision was to hide it. And now, it seems likely that plenty of politicians are basically doing the same -- hide the TPP until the public isn't looking or can't really do anything, and then shove it through.

    Sort of sounds like SOPA. The mass of the DNC is gagging on TPP, so how the !@#$ is she the front runner for the nomination? Because "female president?" Damn, that's shallow. I've got nothing against females, but ffs, why Hillary? Because she's female?!? That's stupid. Grace Hopper I'd vote for. Hillary? Not even if the world was going to end if I didn't. No, by the way, I'm not a Fiorina fan either. Ick.

    It sure would be lovely if, at the last minute, the whole world stood up on it's hind legs to shout out (a la "Network") "I'm mad as hell and am not going to take it anymore!"

    What a cheesy witch that woman is. Damn, I despise pragmatism! "Whatever works" sounds a lot like "The ends justify the means" to me, and everybody knows that's evil.

    Idealism is what we should all aspire to. "Things as they could, and should, be", to quote Aristotle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.