Looking out for themselves; how few Dems will back president on trade?

DUCKWORTH: A 'no' for Obama policy

It may turn out to be ugly on Friday for President Barack Obama when the Trade Promotion Authority measure comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

Many Democrats are making it clear they’re not backing the president on this measure. And while it is the kind of business-oriented measure that Republicans usually like to back, I’d wonder how many of the GOP-leaning House members will let their personal political distaste for Obama guide their votes.

WILL ANYBODY BE willing to back Obama on the measure that alters the amount of oversight that Congress would have over foreign trade agreements. Supposedly, less oversight will boost business interests overseas.

Organized labor, however, is concerned that less oversight will let those business interests run amok over the concerns of working people.

Since many of the Democratic caucus members in Congress give lip service to the idea of backing “working people” and rely on those labor union political action committees for their financial support come Election Day, it shouldn’t be a shock that many are saying they’ll vote “no.”

Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who’s trying to bolster her image so she becomes the front-runner in the 2016 campaign for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, issued a statement Thursday saying she’s voting against Obama on this issue.

“TRADE AGREEMENTS NEED tough, enforceable rules,” she said. “Right now, Congress is failing to demand standards to hold other countries accountable.

“That’s especially true for currency manipulation,” said Duckworth.

KIRK: He votes 'aye,' she votes 'no'

She’s not alone. The Washington Post had a field day on Thursday with a story pointing out the fact that the congressmen from Chicago can’t stand the idea either. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., seems to be the only local congressman willing to consider voting for the idea, according to a commentary he wrote for the Chicago Tribune.

Even that is more motivated by the fear of being the lone vote that causes an Obama desire to fail passage, although he wrote in the Tribune that the president should have this great authority to set trade policy like past presidents have had.

BUT THOSE OFFICIALS who want to garner future political support for themselves don’t seem as concerned.

Duckworth’s opposition to the idea seems predictable, since in her statement she makes a point of saying that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., voted for the idea when it came up for consideration last month by the Senate.

OBAMA: Will anybody back him?

I’m sure Duckworth thinks anything that makes her different from the man she’s challenging in next year’s election cycle is a plus for her.

The idea did pass in the Senate, but mostly with Republican votes. For the record, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., voted “no” for the idea, but told the Washington Post that he did so largely because he felt the measure had enough votes to pass without his support.

ALTHOUGH I HAVE always sensed the House of Representatives is more capable of playing the partisan political game on Capitol Hill. I’m wondering how close we’ll come to seeing the equivalent of that measure in the Illinois House that failed without anybody voting “aye” for it.

They probably won’t want Obama to be able to take credit for an idea they’d rather have a future Republican president have as part of his legacy.

So I’m curious about Duckworth’s statement, particularly because she set up her mass e-mail message to not only make it easy for recipients to send messages to other Democrats telling them to vote “no,” while also making financial contributions to her campaign.

Raising those bucks that allow her to run credibly against Andrea Zopp and any other Democrat who talks of running for the Senate in ’16 may be her primary purpose – and for other Democrats who oppose Obama – in voting the way they do.

  -30-

The mayor’s not eating; will it make a difference in immigration battle?

There’s a group that has been gathered in Washington on the National Mall for more than a month now – they’ve been engaged in a fast the entire time to try to draw attention to the stalemate in Congress that is immigration reform.

President Barack Obama made a point of visiting those protesters on Thanksgiving. Now, his one-time chief of staff seems determined to horn in to gain himself some needed attention on the issue.

MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL – the man who ticked off many Latino activists during Obama’s first presidential term by creating the perception that he wasn’t all that interested in having the president address their concerns – said this week he plans to fast.

Of course, he’s not going for weeks on end without eating. His fast began Thursday night and will end Friday – 24 hours without eating.

Which is probably something that 98 percent of the population of Chicago (particularly those of us too enamored with the Italian beef sandwich or stuffed pizza) could afford to do without any negative impact on our health.

Emanuel wants to make a statement on the immigration reform fight – which is stalled in the House of Representatives as the ideologue segment of the Republican majority that was more than willing to shut down federal government to spite Obama has thwarted action on this issue to express their disgust with the fact that the Latino population is growing so significantly.

HE NEEDS TO make such a statement. Because there are those among the growing Latino community who believe that the reason Obama didn’t tackle the issue during his first term in office is because Emanuel didn’t want to (as he perceived it) waste political capital on it.

I’ll be the first to admit that taking the issue on would have detracted attention from just about anything else.

Getting immigration reform approved during his final term as president will probably take up such attention levels that Obama won’t achieve any other significant accomplishments as president.

Then again, making sense of our nation’s immigration policy (by eliminating the bureaucratic mess that it has become) AND tackling health care reform despite the solid opposition of conservative ideologues might well be a significant legacy.

DENYING HIM THAT legacy seems to be the goal of the ideologues – not the achieving of anything significant!

But back to Emanuel, who began his fast while attending Catholic Mass at St. Pius Parish in the Pilsen neighborhood.

Thursday night was the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe – which in parishes with significant Latino membership becomes one of the significant days during the year.

It is the day that Latino Catholics recall the birth of Jesus Christ, and parishes literally reenact the search of Joseph and Mary of a place where the “Son of God” can be born.

EMANUEL, THE MAN who has had to act aggressively to overcome the apathetic impression toward Latinos he gave as White House chief of staff, is now the guy who’s going to skip a day’s worth of meals (along with several Latino aldermen who also are partaking in a fast) to try to make political amends.

Perhaps, the combination of Emanuel along with a whole lot of other officials will be what it takes to draw attention to the immigration reform battle. Because this probably will be an issue where a combination of Democratic senators along with just enough Republicans to overcome the Tea Party types who think in terms of a fight “To The Death!!!!”

With those as stakes, perhaps skipping a day’s worth of meals (which in Emanuel’s case will probably mean having a late supper Friday) is a slight sacrifice – one that is overdue.

  -30-

EXTRA: What took so long for Obama “Impeachment” talk to spew forth?

The Washington Post reported that Tuesday was the date upon which Republican partisans first used the “impeachment” word with regards to Barack Obama.

OBAMA: He's not going anywhere

The ideologues who twice failed to defeat him can never beat him at the polling place. They have failed to defeat the measure (health care reform) that will wind up being the presidential legacy.

ABOUT THE ONLY option they have left to send Obama to defeat is to push for his removal from office for assorted “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Not that any of these charges will have any credibility – except to the crowd that is still determined to believe Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

Personally, I saw it coming the moment he made his victory statement back in November 2012. That was probably the thought running through the ideologues’ minds at that moment while Obama was talking about uniting the nation.

I don’t doubt that the House of Representatives, if it could get its majority Republican caucus united, could impeach Obama.

Let’s not forget, however, that “impeach” is the political equivalent of “indict.” It’s not a conviction. And there’s no way the Senate would go along with such a scheme and actually vote to remove Obama from office. He’ll become the same as Bill Clinton – which makes me wonder if the ideologues intend to impeach every single Democrat who dares to have the temerity to think he can be president of the United States.

SO WHAT SHOULD we think about impeachment?

We’ll get to see if the political people who were willing to shut down the government earlier this year for partisan reasons can top themselves on the scale of political stupidity!

  -30-