General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid Sen. Cory Booker blow his chance to win the 2020 Prez nomination?
Atrios thinks he could have if we pay attention to his Joe Lieberman type votes...
The Good Old Days Are Back
...We spent the aughts trying to get horrible Democrats to not be quite as horrible, and the media covering the whole thing to not be so horrible. If we couldn't stop the horrible things we could maybe at least stop the Democrats from owning all of them. Saving them (and us) from themselves was a big part of it. I didn't know if we could stop Republicans from privatizing Social Security (we did! yay us!) but we had to do our best to make sure it wasn't all bipartisany. It's the usual "if everyone is to blame, then no one is" combined with the Democrats' love of running on the slogan, "Not quite as evil as the other guys!"
... basically last night 13 Democrats in the Senate voted against allowing cheaper drug imports from The People's Republic of Canadia. Some hope you don't notice, and some don't care if you notice. Some do care. I bet Cory Booker, who took some time off rescuing pets in front of TV cameras and posting inspirational quotes on the website twitter dot com to show how woke he is to help to make sure you have to pay more for lifesaving drugs, cares quite a bit if you notice. Someone's gotta be the Dem candidate for president in 2020, after all.
His DC office number is:
(202) 224-3224
His Newark office number is:
(973) 639-8700
They care a lot more if they get calls from people they represent generally. People who have worked in Congressional offices always say this and mostly they're right. But when the phone lines are jammed because so many people are calling they don't have time to care about who is calling, they just want it to stop.
So call, call ,call.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)If democrats were united. They seem to have a problem with that concept.
atreides1
(16,072 posts)Having a price is???
Some of those 13 Democrats have taken money from pharmaceutical companies, including Booker!!!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So I'm not using that as the standard. this vote sucked, others are good.
In NY and NJ there will always be Wall st and pharmacy money - always- to all candidates considered viable or interesting. Look to their record and stop with these purity test slogans every five minutes. It's crap like this that is going to ensure you don't get Ellison.
Not defending Booker, not a corporate whore myself either. Just not into these bullshit purity tests after last year. Done with that divisiveness.
Response to Larkspur (Original post)
Post removed
physioex
(6,890 posts)
JustinL
(722 posts)If the Wyden Amendment is as bad as Booker's detractors say it is, then why did Sanders and all the Democrats vote for it, and why did all the Republicans vote against it?
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Is it about health care?
JustinL
(722 posts)There were three amendments votes on the topic of importation. The separate Wyden amendment (188) allowed for importation and addressed the safety concerns I had. I have a record of supporting the safe importation of drugs from Canada since 2007 & I will continue to support efforts to do so.
I can't find a link to the text of the amendment. Here's a link to the roll call.
George II
(67,782 posts)JustinL
(722 posts)The final sentence is rather curious; is the author suggesting that Sanders and all the Democrats who voted for the Wyden Amendment are "opponents of importation"?
Because they voted yes on the other amendment.
JustinL
(722 posts)If the certification requirement would truly make importation impossible, then why would a "friend of importation" vote for it?
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)It might not be technically impossible, a Republican government could certify. It just seems very unlikely. Especially considering this has already been passed a couple times (in 2000 and 2007), and there was never certification either time. This is basically just something they like to pass because they know it probably won't actually do anything.
I don't see why someone wouldn't go ahead and vote for that one too if they already voted for the other one. I suppose it's better than nothing at all.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)purity tests are what got us into this mess
otohara
(24,135 posts)no matter how many people died in the decades that resulted from those votes.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and still be held up as the shining example of a politician who 'can't be bought.'
azmom
(5,208 posts)A second amendment Wednesday, authored by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, would have allowed importation pending a safety certification, just like the previous laws passed on the subject. It also failed. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., used that amendment to claim on Twitter that he voted “to lower drug prices through importation from Canada,” and Booker referred to the Wyden amendment in his statement as well. This is a well-worn tactic from opponents of importation to mislead their constituents, as they know such certification will never occur.
Bills to legalize importation passed in 2000 and 2007, but expired after the Clinton and Bush administrationsg refused to certify that it would be safe. The Obama administration also cited safety concerns when opposing an importation measure in the Affordable Care Act.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/?comments=1#comments
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)
kimbutgar
(21,111 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,853 posts)Since he voted for it?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)bbut he proved he wasn't so stupid that he could not put two and two together and realize that if he did not pretend to do something about the rising cost of drugs he was going to get creamed. Now an idiot like Ted Cruz can see that, why the hell couldn't the person who wants to go ahead and possibly run against Trump himself in 2020?
It is one thing to hate Bernie, and belittle anyone who did not walk in line with the great election disaster in 2016, is another entirely to see that people, regardless of political affiliation, are scared shirtless that they will have to make a choice between medicine aand everything else. Even Ted cruises voters do not like the possibility that they might need to start learning how to make meatloaf out of Cat food bbecause drugs that they have no choice to avoid taking will eat what little money they have left.
And really, does anyone by brokers a weak sauce explanation that we had to maintain medical standards? Maybe Corey should take a look at countries that do a much better job of medicine than we do, llike Canada. What do you think, that Canada will secretly get drugs from some third world hell hole, label it Canada, and that people wind up getting poisoned? It's not like American drugs don't kill people, or that American doctors don't lie. It's really funny considering how many of these American drugs wind up being made abroad in places like Mexico or India or China and yet those Canadian pills are evil, so evil that many of the people could not afford to get them in America try to get them through Canada.
The bottom line is this is the same sort of toadying to donors that made us a lot weaker than we should have been when we fought Trump. If we do not want to keep losing to Trump, or the people that the GOP already lined up that will make Trump look like FDR, we have to stop traveling every time the donors get mad.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because if it was a vote against a bill on gun safety, it DOESN'T mean they're in the pocket of the NRA, even if they are getting money from them.
I think.
I find it hard to keep up.
Renew Deal
(81,853 posts)His chances aren't great anyway. But this issue isn't so clear cut. I don't think he's worse off.
MrPurple
(985 posts)Great documentary covering the 1st time he ran for Mayor of Newark and lost to the very corrupt incumbent. Really gritty behind the scenes political documentary that played a lot like The Wire that he came off as really solid in. I was psyched when he went on to become mayor 4 years later.
It's frustrating to see someone who seemed to have passion and skills become a corporate sellout. At this point, I'm not sure how great a thing it is, but still think he'd be a strong candidate for President. The scenario will be set up for the articulate youngish Stanford black guy to feel like Obama II.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)I doubt the parts of the Obama coalition that pushed Hillary Clinton to a primary victory (especially PoC) are going to go fleeing from Booker over a progressive purity test especially when he voted for a similar amendment, Wyden's. If he can excite that base which I'm sure he can with his charisma, this won't matter.
Response to SaschaHM (Reply #14)
Post removed
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)Caliman73
(11,728 posts)Those 3 things may prevent him from completely uniting the party but they will most likely not prevent Booker from winning a nomination from the Democratic Party. A lot of people say that they are against the Corporate Democrats, but when it comes to accepting that their representative has taken great amounts of money from lobbyists pushing agendas that are against average citizen's interests, they tend not to believe it, or justify it in some way so that they can continue to support their favorite person.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"prototypical neo-liberal 3rd way Wall Street Democrat."
All the trendy buzz-words in on one t-shirt. Clever.
An undisciplined mind might even believe it to be accurate rather than simply another unsupported premise if you choose the right hipster font to use (I'd go with Caslon Italicized, but it's your choice...).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)What an absolute coward and hack. This isn't about a progressive purity test like a few conservadems in here are saying. Anyone who sides with pharmaceutical companies over people who can't afford medicine is despicable and has no business in the Democratic Party as far as I'm concerned. I hope someone primaries this guy his next election.
I would vote for almost anyone but him in a 2020 primary race. Elizabeth or Bernie would wipe the floor with this hack.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Bernie receiving 116k from Pharma and Warren 64k. Whats the threshold for being a bought hack? Tim Kaine is at 91k. Gillibrand 90k.
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/H4300/view/all
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Those people aren't bought hacks because they didn't vote on behalf of big pharma. Warren and Sanders voted for the amendment.
It's stunning how you and a couple others on DU are actually trying to defend this. That is really troubling.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Big Pharma bought 13 Dem Senators and then just gave Bernie and Warren over 170k because they felt like throwing away cash.
I'm not going to jump to conclusions based off the half baked analysis of a bunch of alt-lefties looking to clear the field for 2020.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)$ 300k over 6 years? With Johnson and Johnson and other companies headquartered in NJ I am surprised that it isn't 10 times that as companies regularly contribute to both Senators in their states, even if they oppose some of the legislation that they are most concerned about. You would expect the Senator from NJ to have contributions from pharma in their top 3 industries not hanging on at # 8.
He gets twice as much from Hollywood as he does from Pharma.
http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/2051-cory-a-booker
George II
(67,782 posts)....contentious campaign, putting it in normalized terms his $267K is a pittance compared to Sanders' $116K.
Booker received 740,000 votes in his Senate election, Sanders 208,000. So Sanders received almost TWICE as much per voter than Booker did.
Who is the sellout?
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)any idea how many of those companies are in NJ?
Dems aren't supposed to donate to his campaigns if they work for one of those companies? 
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)So because some people who donated to him work for companies that would make a little less profit if we imported drugs, it means that Booker should vote on behalf of those few donors instead of the millions of poor and middle class people in his state who are currently suffering from high drug prices?
Of course, I think most of the big donor money Booker and other politicians care about is probably the big pharma donations through PACs, not from individuals like Bill the Pharmacist. But still, Democrats should always legislate on behalf of the people instead of corporations, donors, and wealthy special interests. If Democrats who work in that industry want to donate to Booker that is totally fine, but that doesn't mean Booker should vote like a Republican because of a few donors.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...of the pharmaceutical companies either are headquartered or have plants in New Jersey. There are probably tens of thousands of employees in this industry in New Jersey.
People want the "little people" involved in politics but if they work for a particular industry its bad if they contribute to their candidates.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)especially 5 times.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and not mentioning that these are AGGREGATE contributions from EMPLOYEES of pharmaceutical companies, not the companies themselves (who are prohibited from contributing).
Do you folks know where the pharmaceutical companies are located? Many are in NEW JERSEY, and they have floor sweepers, janitors, plumbers, clerks, truck drivers, factory workers, etc. ALL of those employees are lumped into that $267,000.
You do realize that no single individual, regardless of their position in a company, can only contribute $2700.
So, the President of a pharmaceutical company can only give $2700, just as a clerk can only give $2700, and there are a lot more everyday employees than there are high level executives.
Dig into the details of that $267,000 - contributors over a certain level (I think it's $100) are required to give their occupation, also.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Cory the Tory has all the charisma but none of the policy.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)Booker was one of thirteen Senators to vote against a bill. Yet, he's the only one being called out in the headlines of these articles. This is the fourth article/opinion piece to do so. Almost all of them don't explain what the Wyden amendment did and that he voted for it. The only thing he appears to be guilty of is not voting for a particular senator's bill.
Interesting many of these same Progressive haven't written anything about WV Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin announcement that he's voting for Sessions.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)One even posted a list from a site and conveniently left out the fact that the same list had Bernie taking about 116K from pharmaceutical manufacturing.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)I saw that post and just trashed it. It's telling that there were at least three other Democrats that took more money from big Pharma according to their own chart. Of course, they listed him first as if he had taken the most.
That's why I'm skeptical of all this outrage targeting Booker.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)The chart clearly shows Cory Booker taking more pharma money than any other Democrat:
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/H4300/view/all
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)The party better pull its collective head out of it's arse or it will continue to lose.
This billl was defeated by monied interests snd the politiciand it brought.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)Still, haven't seen where the bill Booker voted against and the Wyden amendment differed. There no info that this bill was the best or most comprehensive in getting low-cost medication. All the articles I've seen focused on how Booker betrayed us. Not one of them has reported the language of either bill.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)In a statement to the media after the vote, Booker’s office said he supports the importation of prescription drugs but that “any plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didn’t meet this test.”
This argument is the same one offered by the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which lobbies against importation, maintains that it opposes importation because “foreign governments will not ensure that prescription drugs entering the U.S. from abroad are safe and effective.”
The safety excuse has long been a refuge for policymakers who don’t want to assist Americans struggling with prescription drug costs. Bills to legalize importation passed in 2000 and 2007, but expired after the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to certify that it would be safe. The Obama administration also cited safety concerns when opposing an importation measure in the Affordable Care Act.
A second amendment Wednesday, authored by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, would have allowed importation pending a safety certification, just like the previous laws passed on the subject. It also failed. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., used that amendment to claim on Twitter that he voted “to lower drug prices through importation from Canada,” and Booker referred to the Wyden amendment in his statement as well. This is a well-worn tactic from opponents of importation to mislead their constituents, as they know such certification will never occur.
The safety excuse is mostly a chimera, as most of the drugs that would be imported from Canada were originally manufactured in the United States; they’re just cheaper there, because the Canadian government uses a review board and price negotiation to make drugs more affordable.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)It doesn't list the language or major differences between the two bills.
mvd
(65,171 posts)Manchin was just as bad. Overall he is more annoying than Booker. I will continue with my vision for a more progressive party (of which getting big corporate donations out is important) and it is not about just Booker.
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)It's just every DU post about this vote is focused on hating Booker. They're not interested in the Wyden amendment or that all the Democrats voted for it.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)It's much more aggravating when someone like Booker does something like this. He's lauded as a progressive and people like to pump him up as a possible 2020 candidate. It's extremely frustrating when someone that is supposed to be a progressive and the future of the party votes like this.
Joe Manchin on the other hand is a conservative Democrat from a very conservative state. It goes without saying that senators like him will vote in ways we disagree with. If there was a way to get a real progressive elected in West Virginia that would be great, but I'm not holding my breath. Manchin is probably as good as we are going to get in that state. Therefore it doesn't make me nearly as angry as when a supposed progressive like Booker turns out to be corporatist when he doesn't really need to be because he's from a blue state.
I'm not saying Booker is the worst person in the world or even the worst Democrat in the entire senate, I just don't think he should be celebrated and be progressives' top pick for President or a big leadership role. It's obvious he's fairly controlled by big money.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Dorian Gray
(13,490 posts)He's a rising star in the Dem party, and we generally like him. Just this past week, he gave anti-Sessions testimony that so many of us appreciated, immensely.
So this seems tone deaf. And with the rising costs of health care and the fear that the ACA will be repealed, this seems even more tone deaf!
rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)He still voted for a bill that would allow drug importation.
Quixote1818
(28,928 posts)mvd
(65,171 posts)Out of contention for being our nominee. Need someone from the Warren/Sanders mold again, though ideally will be a Democrat since our party needs change from within.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)dumb af.
Maru Kitteh
(28,336 posts)totally okay when they do it. doesn't mean a thing. nothing to see here.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)lowered the cost of prescription drugs in the afternath of an election that pulled their pants down to their ankles and these 13 democrats bocked it. The Republicans will continue to kick our @$$ if we cant even pick the low hanging fruit.
This will conveniently happen on bill after bill.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)They didn't even have that if you include the 13 that voted against. In reality, they stopped nothing.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Every amendment to the bill needed 60. With those Dems, since Feinstein is recovering from surgery, there would have only been 59.
Hell, Even Republican amendments failed 51-47 because they couldn't get 9 Democrats to cross lines and join them.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/3/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D
seaglass
(8,171 posts)Ava
(16,197 posts)edit to say, no actually. I don't think this blows his chances. I just think he had slim chances to begin with.
Response to Larkspur (Original post)
Post removed
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,853 posts)She had an aura of "inevitability" until Obama came along, and I was so thankful he came along! I was very worried about the distrust that Republicans had fomented against Hillary (and Bill) for many years.
This time? I kind of felt like she was "pushed on me" again, but I didn't really care because I didn't think any Democrat could lose to Trump (electoral college or otherwise)! If the Republicans had nominated almost anyone else against Hillary Clinton, I would've worried. In fact, I derived some pleasure that such a hated person, among right-wingers that I've personally heard over the years, was going to give them fits for another four years!
I wasted more of my time laughing at the GOP primaries instead of worrying too much about the Democratic side!
When polls still showed a tight race even after the conventions and debates, I finally started feeling uneasy... which became full-blown nausea on election night!
Response to Larkspur (Original post)
pnwmom This message was self-deleted by its author.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)He'll cast many votes and take many positions on different things over the next few years
It's possible that this vote hurt him, maybe not
We'll see as time goes on
I never saw him as a major candidate in 2020 anyway
tblue37
(65,293 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,800 posts)
malaise
(268,903 posts)
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Booker never was, isn't and never will be Presidential material.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)Seasider
(169 posts)then I could see him as a serious contender for 2020 but as other have pointed out his chances of being the party nominee in 2020 were not that great even before this incident.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I'm not sure why though?
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I predict Trump is going to make this an issue, he will attack Booker because he knows it will drive a wedge in the dems, and it will eventually pass, but Trump will get credit, not the dems.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)The guy tried to privatize Newark's water and school systems. If the Democrats nominate him, the party's going to collapse.
George II
(67,782 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)The guy who never met a Charter school he didn't want to throw public money at?
I'm hoping he already did that before this vote.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Forgot about his support of Charter schools.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Lieberman at a certain point lived to be seen as a thorn in the side of Democrats. It became pure spite. I don't think Booker is at that level, but he's also not some kind of Democratic savior or even what I would call liberal. Definitely not in the economic sense.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Both Booker and Ellison get thrown under the bus in the same week...
As an aside, what the hell is "Canadia?"
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's amazing how one Senator can be a hero one day, and a total turncoat the next.
Cory is a strong senator who we need in our upcoming fight against Trump - the focus is TRUMP and the GOPee. And until we get big money out of politics completely, we will always have Senators voting with their home interests in mind. And there's this:
The vote was actually one to waive a point of order against the Sanders-Klobuchar amendment for being non-germane to the bare-bones budget resolution it sought to amend. So the 46–52 margin by which it failed was actually 14 votes short of what the sponsors needed for success. Thus it failed like the other 16 amendments voted on during the Kabuki theater of the budget resolution “vote-a-rama,” a high-speed series of votes engineered by Senate Democrats to get Senate Republicans on record for casting unpopular or party-dividing votes.
Renew Deal
(81,853 posts)Booker has been less than 100% reliable. This lack of obedience bothers the most extreme out there.
Booker will always be a lightning rod on DU because of his perceived betrayals. It's just the way it is going to be and some people here are looking for reasons to attack him because he is clearly strong. Booker should be himself and see how things work out. I'm not convinced that he's presidential material, but we'll see how things shake out.
JHan
(10,173 posts)even if the concern is money in politics, Democrats take the lead on that argument for reform - it is Republicans who attack attempts to take big money out of politics. If we ( Liberals, dems , leftists/progressives) were more united, we'd have a Democratic President and possibly seen an overturn of Citizens United and FEC vs. McCutcheon. If this can divide democrats so early in the game, I'm despondent over 2020
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and she's still being held up as a possibility.
Yavin4
(35,433 posts)
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)other than Booker. He's fine as a Senator
