Booker joins GOP maj in voting down Klobucha amdt on importing cheaper drugs

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Less than a year ago, Booker teamed up with Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to sponsor legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to those brave civil rights pioneers who marched at great peril from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery, to press for passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When he spoke of Sessions at a joint press event in February 2016, Booker said:

This is truly one of my life's greatest moments. I am humbled to be able to participate here and pay tribute to some of the extraordinary Americans whose footsteps paved the way for me and my generation. I feel blessed and honored to have partnered with Sen. Sessions in being the Senate sponsors of this important award.

How big of a phony is this guy? Now he is testifying breaking tradition as the 1st Senator & then he is posting Malala & MLK quotes in Twitter. Total showboating without substance.

Welcome to politics.

It may be how politics are, but it's not politics should be.

Its like that because you can't win an election on smart policies. Most people don't have the sanders ability to build a cult of personality based on intangible factors of little actual relevance to policy, So they have to (or at least they think they have to) do really stupid showboating to gain relevance. He wouldn't be doing it if the left didn't have an irrational compulsion to demonize him as much as possible.

[Cynthia]

It's actually Sanders-Klobuchar Amdt.

[Shadows]

Multiple reports: 13 Dems who voted No to Sanders amdmt to buy drugs from Canada are unable to manage calls & emails from upset constituents
 
Booker had to make 10 Tweets to calm people down. Murray says she is working with Sanders to come up with this. These people care about re-election & pressure definitely works

[Virginiá]

I don't know if this was already addressed, and I don't want to read every post here right now, but even as someone who is vehemently against special interest money like this (and I think less of Booker for taking money as dirty as pharma cash), his vote makes more sense as a misguided attempt to protect his state's industry. Now, you might say, protecting people from high drug prices does far more than protecting x jobs, and you're probably right (to a degree), but that doesn't mean everyone sees it exactly the same way.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/14/14262732/cory-booker-senate-democrats

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is easy to point to the cash and blame that, but honestly, it really doesn't add up in this case. Either way, it doesn't make the vote any less disgusting, but I think pointing at politicians and calling them special interest stooges should be the last thing we do.

[Figueira]

Peters and Kaine are not all that moderate. I would have used Maggie Hassan and Joe Manchin as examples.

[Virginiá]

@Virginia: I'm not sure what the difference is? For any given US Senator, protecting home state interests and cultivating the support of top donors usually amounts to the same thing.

Motive counts a lot here. When I see people posting dollar figures (like in this thread) and pointing fingers, the assumption is that Booker sold his vote. Personally, knowing the reality of our current system, I don't care if a politician solicits money from a range of groups/people so long as they don't let it affect their votes - at least on the ones that count. I'd prefer if they didn't, though.

My argument was that regardless of the money, there is at least a little reason to believe Booker would have voted Nay anyway.

[Virginiá]

There's a wide distance between literally selling a vote and remaining so totally isolated from the interests of donors that they carry no more than any other constituent. Most concerns about campaign finance and political influence in the United States are concerned with this middle ground, which is why I think that you're wrong to dismiss the significance of those donations. They're not a sine qua non, but they are symptomatic.

That's a fair point, but I still think too many people are placing too much emphasis on the campaign money. I do not believe the money alone explains this, and I don't necessarily believe his vote was entirely devoid of want for his constituents. I suppose the donations could hold more significance, but I am no longer convinced it is a defining factor here. Knowing that his vote was in some way based on the desire to protect jobs for his people and revenue for his state would change the calculus here as opposed to believing he was just paid off and really never factored his constituents into his decision making.

In fact, this is something that has been bothering me a lot post-Sanders. Even as someone who values major campaign finance reform as one of her top-2 issues, I think many folks in my camp put too much stock in campaign donations and have a tendency to burn at the stake anyone who takes any money from special interests, as if every donation means they are bought and paid for.

[houseonaboat]

@Virginia: I'm not sure what the difference is? For any given US Senator, protecting home state interests and cultivating the support of top donors usually amounts to the same thing.

You're underestimating how smart donors are about who they donate to. Mark Warner gets a lot of Wall Street money (probably on par with the amount of defense money he gets) and I guarantee you there aren't a whole lot of hedge funds in Arlington. Tech will donate to any GOP Congressman or Senator who supports immigration reform, defense will donate to pro-manufacturing Democrats, and so on. Industries will coalesce as easily around candidates who have tangential reasons to protect their interests as much as they will around candidates with whom they have mutual interests.

In this case, the pharma industry's interests coincide with Booker's home state interest's, but there's no reason this is necessarily the case, meaning that it's probably best to view Booker's vote as a protection of New Jersey (even though he shamelessly didn't portray it as such) rather than anything to do with donors.

Side note: $300k is nothing for a Senate campaign. Come on now.

[Shadows]

Schumer is a smart cookie, He is the senate leader, ofcourse he won't create a civil war when 33 Dems went for this. Schumer is the Dem leader & has made saving Healthcare his priority (he asked for a Public option).

Being 100% bought for a vote & being influenced are 2 different things. It is absolutely impossible to say the degree of influence. It is hilarious that Murray & the WA Senators vote for this - It is upto Booker to prove if his is corrupted by the money or not considering this way a very VERY bad vote.

Coming to the jobs issue, it is a very bad argument. NJ has a significant Pharma sector, but not all jobs are based on that, it is diversified. Charging normal prices (& not absurd one's in a monopoly) doesn't lose you a whole set of jobs. If a small section of jobs were lost, then it will be counter-balanced by a huge fall in prices (considering the volume) which will save lives in NJ too & everywhere & would increase REAL disposable income (cost comes down, you have more money to spend, that creates jobs).

It is likely to be net positive. The fact people are comparing killing monopolies & absurd pricing for life saving drugs to the destruction of that industry itself is IMO wrong. Creating absurd monopolies is not a huge employment generator.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Jacobin did a great piece on this.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/cory-booker-jeff-sessions-pharmaceutical-drugs-vote/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

So apparently Booker had some hecklers at this weekend's rally in support of Obamacare in Newark, and according to this guy posting on RunTulsiRun, he met with the hecklers afterwards:

link

[Dr. Arch]

Good on him ↑

[Shadows]

So apparently Booker had some hecklers at this weekend's rally in support of Obamacare in Newark, and according to this guy posting on RunTulsiRun, he met with the hecklers afterwards:

link

This is why reddit is so useful.

And I love the posters & lol @ Booker speaking with those posters lying on the table - What a way of trolling !

[RINO Tom]

There were other obvious differences between Obama '08 and Sanders '16, namely that Obama clearly won the wealthy vote in the '08 primaries while losing the "white working class", who were Clinton's base in 2008. I was a big-time Obama supporter in 2008, but there's no question, while he was a "change" candidate, he was also a center-left candidate who overall campaigned more to Clinton's right than her left and was more about "reform" and "clean government" than left-wing policies. Pretending otherwise is pure revisionist history.

Of course, this should also warn Sanders supporters that campaigning on left-wing policies is not going to win you back a ton of white working class votes in the general election. They voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries and shamelessly against her in the 2016 primaries in both cases because they wanted to vote against the person who was obviously winning the Democratic primaries rather than because they would consider voting for the losing candidate in the general election.

-First paragraph is correct; second one wrong. Just look at New Hampshire both in 2008 and 2016.

Not to mention several polls showed Clinton ahead in states like West Virginia and Arkansas vs. McCain...

[justfollowingtheelections]

So what did he say to the protesters?
The protester who posted that picture on facebook also wrote that after meeting with Booker she still thinks he's a sell-out, which tells me that whatever he said wasn't convincing.

[White Trash]

There were other obvious differences between Obama '08 and Sanders '16, namely that Obama clearly won the wealthy vote in the '08 primaries while losing the "white working class", who were Clinton's base in 2008. I was a big-time Obama supporter in 2008, but there's no question, while he was a "change" candidate, he was also a center-left candidate who overall campaigned more to Clinton's right than her left and was more about "reform" and "clean government" than left-wing policies. Pretending otherwise is pure revisionist history.

Of course, this should also warn Sanders supporters that campaigning on left-wing policies is not going to win you back a ton of white working class votes in the general election. They voted for Clinton in the 2008 primaries and shamelessly against her in the 2016 primaries in both cases because they wanted to vote against the person who was obviously winning the Democratic primaries rather than because they would consider voting for the losing candidate in the general election.

-First paragraph is correct; second one wrong. Just look at New Hampshire both in 2008 and 2016.

Not to mention several polls showed Clinton ahead in states like West Virginia and Arkansas vs. McCain...

I don't know. Given the climate in 2008, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that way.

[Virginiá]

So what did he say to the protesters?
The protester who posted that picture on facebook also wrote that after meeting with Booker she still thinks he's a sell-out, which tells me that whatever he said wasn't convincing.

I wouldn't use the term 'sellout' myself, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a lot he can say in this situation. He can't talk his way out of this. The only real way to smooth it over is to pledge and deliver his support to future amendments/bills of this sort.

Whether his vote was bought or he really did just try to protect industry in his state, or both, the pharma industry is bleeding this country out and it has gone on long enough. Even beginning to put an end to that in one way or another is going to help more than hurt in the long run, and Booker needs to think beyond pockets of jobs here and there in NJ.

And if he has presidential ambitions, well, he doesn't get to just act like some great protector of jobs/the pharma industry in NJ. Protecting corporate interests, particularly ones as greedy as the pharmaceutical industry, is not a way to rally support for a presidential run. I certainly wouldn't support/volunteer for him in a primary if he continued to prioritize corporate interests above the people.

[RogueBeaver]

Wherein Booker gets a spirited defense from DeRay McKesson. TL;DR: most critics didn't read the damn bill.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Wherein Booker gets a spirited defense from DeRay McKesson. TL;DR: most critics didn't read the damn bill.

What language in the bill justifies a "no" vote? Being "broad and non-binding" as DeRay describes it were not reasons why Booker defended his vote.

[BuckeyeNut]

@Virginia: I'm not sure what the difference is? For any given US Senator, protecting home state interests and cultivating the support of top donors usually amounts to the same thing.

You're underestimating how smart donors are about who they donate to. Mark Warner gets a lot of Wall Street money (probably on par with the amount of defense money he gets) and I guarantee you there aren't a whole lot of hedge funds in Arlington. Tech will donate to any GOP Congressman or Senator who supports immigration reform, defense will donate to pro-manufacturing Democrats, and so on. Industries will coalesce as easily around candidates who have tangential reasons to protect their interests as much as they will around candidates with whom they have mutual interests.

In this case, the pharma industry's interests coincide with Booker's home state interest's, but there's no reason this is necessarily the case, meaning that it's probably best to view Booker's vote as a protection of New Jersey (even though he shamelessly didn't portray it as such) rather than anything to do with donors.

Side note: $300k is nothing for a Senate campaign. Come on now.

Yes it is? The average raised by Senate campaigns this past cycle was $4.6 million. $300k is roughly 1/14th of $4.6 mil. Since it wasn't a single donation, it's a slow burn, but it's still a fair bit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's Booker talking at the AFC school privatization group that Betsy Devos chairs. Booker is such a fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9SHAlZN8OU&app=desktop

[RINO Tom]

This is also more proof that, even if some Democrats might abandon the party's historically populist principles, VERY few Republicans are willing to fill that void.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Wherein Booker gets a spirited defense from DeRay McKesson. TL;DR: most critics didn't read the damn bill.

How does a tweet require a "TLDR," and what actually is it that actually suggests that the legislation is inadequate? The fact that Booker himself is incapable of offering a cogent explanation for his vote is telling.

This is the Hillary campaign all over again. Centrists who support Booker have to constantly defend his votes and missteps.

He's gonna get shafted in a Democratic primary.

[politics_king]

Amy is a champion of left policies, this is part of setting up the 2020 primary race.