It takes a Democratic President to undermine labour in the US.

In hindsight, it is exceedingly easy to see who he has been working for all the time - single payer/public option off the table and Big Insurance and Big Pharma invited to belly up to the bar first thing. Willingness to consider SS cuts to get a budget deal. Whatever happened to his promises to labor about the card checkoff? Baling out the banksters and doing squat to reform Wall Street. Now this.

Who he has actually been working for 80+% of the time would be obvious to Stevie Wonder.

they might even forget they hate his guts. Might is the operative word here. I don't think the young 'uns, even without Cantor, can do that.

and skin color is actually minor. But whatever.

except maybe to have a laugh.

The Republicans in Congress are very openly Obama's allies on the TPP. His party is predominantly against him on this.

It isn't a matter of interpretation.

are going to vote for it?

Good to know.

As the Romans might ask, "post hoc ergo prompter hoc?"

are his allies on trade. Most Democrats are oppoaing his trafe agenda.

"Most Democrats" (not limited to politicians) do support his trade agenda.

Congressional republicans may be his allies. The republican base surely is not.

to avoid criticizing a President who deserves it. "Most Democrats" do not approve the trade agenda; they have seen them before.

That is really nothing new though. Polls show that Democrats, outside the Beltway, have always been more supportive of expanded trade while republicans, outside the Beltway, have always been more critical of trade agreements and organizations.

Do the polls show Democratic support of the specifics of the trade deals, or of this "trade" deal, or do they show support for the Democratic president? As for Republicans, I've always noticed that they hate and fear surrendering sovereignty to the UN or international law, but multi-national corporations? Not so much.

Poll done in April of Democrats only:

Initial TPA Ballot
Q5. From what you have heard, do you… granting President Obama trade promotion authority?

Strongly support 25%
Somewhat support 39%
Somewhat oppose 13%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 14%

SUPPORT 64%
OPPOSE 21%

Initial TPP Ballot
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%

SUPPORT 52%
OPPOSE 18%

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e2b1d1e4b043f1c9a2a9ed/t/55424db8e4b04641a244468d/1430408665168/trade-poll.pdf

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

Exactly what percentage of these folks do you think have a clue as to what they're agreeing with? 1%? 2%? Please.

1) the poll is biased - poor methodology, vague or leading questions, etc. or 2) the "Democrats" being polled are lying about being Democrats (most are probably tea party supporters lying to make Democrats look bad) or 3) they are just uniformed or clueless Democrats so their opinion really does not matter.

As a 'true believer', when confronted with polls that cast doubt on the popularity of our opinion with other Democrats, we must reject those polls immediately. OTOH, the polls above do show that the majority of Americans oppose TPP, so perhaps they are not the worst polls in the world.

took a Democrat to "end welfare as we know it" also

just the usual, business interests and the politicians they have bought scheming against everyone else

don't be surprised when they keep voting as many times as necessary to pass, even though if legislation you like dies in Congress it will be another generation before your next chance - we're seeing exposed who the DC establishment really works for

"President Barack Obama and his Republican allies"

...and from a poster in that thread: pay for the "retraining" by cutting Medicare.

...and yet some want to see an extension of Obama with some war hawk added for 2016.

I never thought Obama would end up being a traitor to me. I actually went to one of his rallies in Tampa. I feel like a total sucker for that. What ever good he has done has been surpassed by the bad he has done ...and the bad he has tried to do. Good for those who got ACA ...I never qualified ...in Florida but I did hear him talk about single payer before I voted for him.

Signed,
Bern'd voter

book to stop him but I am upset with what he is doing right now. It is neither good for our country or the partner countries we are talking into signing. More power to the multi-national corporations is the last thing the world needs. Only the Rs and a few renegades in our own party are for this mess.

He had enough Democratic Senator to pass whatever he wanted.

Rs have for him. I think he thought that they really cared about this country. Big mistake.

While House Democrats worry about being reelected in their little provincial local districts, some Democrats and President Obama, who serves all the people, recognize trade and international partnerships are critical for the American future, economy and security.

But let's check out, and let others lead the world.

We have to take care of the Number One priority for House Democrats - keeping their job! This should secure your job, right?

Corruption on a massive scale, perpetrated by ethically depraved politicians (Obama and his GOP allies, plus a few Wall St. Democrats) who have no scruples selling out the American public to multinational corporations.

And killing TAA was a particularly sweet way in their eyes to kill TPA since they have long regarded TAA it as a Democratic, pro-worker, wasteful government program that had been forced on them to begin with.

Democrats in the Senate forced unwilling republicans to include funding for TAA in their TPA bill. That made tea party senators furious. I suspect that is one in which the tea party will be happy to let Obama claim ownership.

So Dems should vote like Repugs, trickle down does wonders for our society, jobs won't flow out of the nation due to a trade deal? Nope!! Voting for TPP isn't being sensible, it's killing jobs, and vastly increasing the costs of medicines. It's giving international corporate profits primacy over national labor and environmental laws. TPP is NAFTA on steroids and we would definitely hear the sucking sound of American jobs going overseas even faster than they are now.

Voting for TPP isn't good for Democrats, it's very very bad. That's why the provisions are being kept more hidden than any other trade bill EVER. The one about corporate courts shutting down laws is being held secret for 4 years after the bill is finalized. Why, if this is a good bill, does the most important part have to be hidden from the world for 4 years? Because it's not a good bill, it's truly awful and only the 1% supports it or will get a single benefit from it.

over our political system.

that makes you think the Republicans are supporting this because it is good for working Americans?

I actually have no job - got laid off. Prove this - "recognize trade and international partnerships are critical for the American future, economy and security" - in what way does the TPP do this?

Today, Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to help the United States negotiate and enforce strong, high-standard trade deals that are good for American workers and good for American businesses. That’s a good thing. My top priority as President is to grow the economy and open new avenues of opportunity for hardworking Americans. And today’s new economy demands we encourage new sources of growth and job creation, so that America remains vital, dynamic, and on the cutting edge. That’s what smart new trade agreements can do – agreements for fair and free trade that level the playing field for our workers, open new markets for our businesses, and hold other countries to the kinds of high standards that Americans are proud to hold ourselves to here at home. These kinds of agreements reflect the realities of a 21st century economy. These kinds of agreements make sure that the global economy’s rules aren’t written by countries like China; they’re written by the United States of America. And to stand in their way is to do nothing but preserve the long-term status quo for American workers, and make it even harder for them to succeed.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) will expand workers’ rights, it will protect the environment, it will promote a free and open Internet, and it will support robust new measures to crack down on countries that break the rules – the same way we’ve brought dozens of new trade cases over the past six years, and won again and again. But as I’ve said before, new trade agreements should go hand in hand with support to American workers who’ve been harmed by trade in the past. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is an initiative that would give roughly 100,000 American workers access to vital support each year. But it’s currently scheduled to expire soon. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have renewed it. Republicans and Democrats in the House failed to renew it today – and that inaction will directly hurt about 100,000 workers and their communities annually if those Members of Congress don’t reconsider. I urge the House to pass TAA without delay so that more middle-class workers can earn the chance to participate and succeed in our global economy.

I thank the bipartisan group of Representatives who came together on behalf of America’s workers, our businesses, and our economy. And I urge the House of Representatives to pass TAA as soon as possible, so I can sign them both, and give our workers and businesses even more wind at their backs to do what they do best: imagine, invent, build, and sell goods Made in America to the rest of the world.

view?

cited by the opponents to trade have no merit. They are speculation and conjecture.

All the proponents are asking is to let the TPP negotiations come to completion adhering to the still to be finalized Congressional guidelines for trade, and then if we don't like it, then we have specific grounds to oppose it. Congress would still have to pass it, and with all of us involved and looking at it on-line, it would still take 4 months to pass!

They are not voting on TPP. They are voting on the procedures and guidelines authorizing the president to negotiate trade as specified by Congress (TPA). They are voting on assistance to displaced workers (TAA), which Democrats have supported since 1974.

The easy choice for a Democrat is "Never again!"

Obama has never been about the easy choice.

Almost all of the progressive groups in the country are against it. The repuke front groups, Wall Street, RNC, and mega corporations are spending millions to cram this piece of treason down our throats. Basically nothing more than a corporate coup d'etat. The damn thing was written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists that have taken over the USTR.

"Corporate coup d'état"?

"Cram this treason down our throats"?

"Corporate lawyers and lobbyists have taken over the USTR"?

"Investment/outsourcing/corporate power grab?"

You really believe all this?

Its nothing more than a revolving door of corporate lawyers and lobbyists.

USTR Nominee Froman Called 'One Of The Most Egregious Examples Of The Way The Revolving Door Works Between Gov't And Business'

After posting a bit about Michael Froman, the new nominee for USTR, I was already skeptical that he'd be any improvement over the predecessor, Ron Kirk. After all, Froman was deeply involved in three of the worst free trade agreements that the US has negotiated over the past few years, which more or less set the model for the ambitious and dangerously misguided ACTA and TPP agreements. However, some others have pointed out that it may be even worse, highlighting a Felix Salmon blog post from 2009, in which he calls Michael Froman out as being an "egregious example" of the revolving door problem we've highlighted between regulators and the businesses they regulate.

[Michael Froman's] one of the most egregious examples — up there with Bob Rubin, literally — we’ve yet seen of the way the revolving door works between business and government generally, and between Citigroup and Treasury in particular.

That's troubling, to say the least. Salmon points to a Matt Taibbi piece for Rolling Stone that highlights some very questionable activity on the part of Froman, including keeping his job at Citibank while helping to select the economic team for Obama's first term... the very folks who would be in charge of regulating Citibank

This is evil incarnate?

Or qualified, dedicated public servant with appropriate background?

I suppose we could just hire the next round of GED graduates and put them in charge?

Michael Froman was sworn in as the 11th United States Trade Representative (USTR) on June 21, 2013. As USTR, he is President Obama’s principal advisor, negotiator and spokesperson on international trade and investment issues.

Ambassador Froman leads the Office of the United States Trade Representative in its work to open global markets for U.S. goods and services, enforce America’s rights in the global trading system, and foster development through trade. Key initiatives ongoing under his leadership are negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in the Asia Pacific; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union; negotiation of agreements on services, information technology and trade facilitation at the World Trade Organization; and monitoring and enforcement U.S. trade rights, including through the Interagency Trade and Enforcement Center (ITEC).

Prior to becoming USTR, Ambassador Froman served at the White House as Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, where he was responsible for coordinating policy on international trade and finance, energy security and climate change, and development and democracy issues. He served as the U.S. Sherpa for the G20 and G8 Summits, and staffed the President for the APEC Leaders Meetings. In addition, he chaired or co-chaired the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, the Transatlantic Economic Council, the U.S.-India CEO Forum and the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum.

Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Ambassador Froman served in a number of roles at Citigroup and as a Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and a Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

In the 1990’s, Ambassador Froman spent seven years in the U.S. Government. He served as Chief of Staff and as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Eurasia and the Middle East at the U.S. Department of Treasury. He also worked at the White House, where he served as a Director for International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council and National Economic Council.

Ambassador Froman received a bachelor’s degree in Public and International Affairs from Princeton University, a doctorate in International Relations from Oxford University and law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in California. He, his wife, Nancy Goodman, and their two living children, Benjamin and Sarah, reside in Washington, D.C.

Former corporate executive and head of USTR writes his own bio and conveniently leaves out all the shady corporate dealing years he spent at Citi Group.

skids for favorable legislation.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret


“It fuels the revolving door between banks and the government,” said Michael Smallberg, an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), whose 2013 report detailed these types of compensation agreements. The average executive branch salary is substantially less than these millions in awards, so the bonuses effectively supplement the lower pay, raising questions about who the government officials actually work for.

Citigroup is a serial user of these practices, if only because so many of its alumni serve in government. Jack Lew, Weiss’ boss at Treasury, had $250,000 to $500,000 in restricted stock vested after he left an executive position at the bank, part of a $1.1 million golden parachute revealed during the confirmation process. Stanley Fischer, currently the vice chair of the Federal Reserve, had a similar clause in his Citigroup employment contract. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman received over $4 million in multiple exit payments from Citigroup when he left for the Obama Administration.

If it were so damn good for us there would be NO DAMN REASON TO KEEP IT SO F'ING SECRET!

Do you really think that a bill being worked in that fashion with primarily corporate leaders and the USTR is working in our interests? REALLY? And you expect us to believe this crap!?

Where are you getting this from?

Do you seriously think Obama is sitting thinking "Sure, we'll lose 100,000 jobs, but I'll have speaking fees for the rest of my life!"

People don't understand just how crazy that sounds. Especially when you hear it over and over and over, like it is fact. Like it is not crazy.

Unknowing smartass

Very nice.

Carry on.

Please forgive me.

The rest of it is just international partnerships of the 1% everywhere to fuck over the 99% everywhere. Anyone actually concerned about trade would just pull out those five articles and pass them separately. If you are with the Republicans, then you are against labor and the environment.

that thread blames the top debacle on unions. When people say "the president and his republican allies", they're talking about boner, McConnell, and the BOG.

highlighted when it is so clear and stark.

Because it is now becoming clear that the Democrats want to cede control of trade to a future Republican administration.

That makes exactly no sense.

When he described his economic policy as moderate Republican he wasn't kidding

...with a dollop of social justice as a sweetener.

It's good in a way that the end of his presidency has exposed his corporate sympathies.

Sorry Doctor, it still makes no sense.

Why do you want the GOP to control World trade?

corporate takeover/trade agenda.

Why would you trust the TeaPubliKlans to protect American workers, safeguard the environment, and regulate multinationals? Seems absurd to me.

and fuck public health groups. Fuck the NAACP which also opposes the tpp. Nice. And no it does not mean ceding trade to repukes. Rejecting tpa ensures that. But don't worry, odds are they'll cave, and if a repuke is elected prez, they damn well will be in charge.

You make no sense and you seem fine with screwing progressive allies

As per the usual, many will be left out but this gives a little bit of cover for sellout pols and their cheerleaders.

Took about 70 years but that's the point we're at, backsliding into isolationism.

There are also very smart people for it. I've seen enough on DU and enough in the press to not fully buy what either side is saying. Will the TPP cost some jobs? Yeah probably, but many of those jobs are going away anyways. Will the TPP advance the US interest in fair trade? Yeah probably, but it won't be a cure-all. I would need something further than a fact sheet from a think-tank with a dog in the fight and Michael Hiltzik who I respect very much but isn't exactly the international trade expert. Most of what's in that fact sheet is vague and only indirectly about this agreement. It makes a philosophical argument, not a direct argument against this agreement.

I get the fierce opposition to globalization broadly and to trade agreements more specifically on DU, but I consider the source. I respect the judgment of the President and the capabilities of his expert advisors and negotiators that this is in the national interest.

Sorry.

...and the basics of this debate go back more than 200 years!

They have been FDR democrats from long ago. They are not trickle down economists. They have reasons for what is happening. I will follow them before I follow any one else.

Forgot to add Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Saunders.

Nothing prevents those people from trying and convince us to sell ourselves down the river.

Shouldn't through that F-word around

to corporate entities is one of the hallmarks of fascism. The TPP very clearly does this, so the "F-word" is applicable to this scenario.

You may very well be comfortable letting other "smart people" do your thinking for you, but I'd rather think for myself. To quote Captain Kirk from Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan: "I'm laughing at the superior intellect."

that support it. The republican party resisted them for 4 decades before finally caving. Their base still has not 'caved' and hates everything about them.

Many "new" liberal Democrats seem to regret what those 'old' liberal Democrats accomplished, perhaps preferring the pre-FDR trade policy of Coolidge and Hoover when there were high tariffs and no 'sovereignty-robbing' international trade organizations.

"There is no greater impotence in all the world like knowing you are right and that the wave of the world is wrong, yet the wave crashes upon you."

- Norman Mailer, Armies of the Night

actual trade of products not multi-national corporations profit and power over both the workers and the buyer. The laws to allow the FDR type of trade are still in force as far as I know. They do not give the new people = corporations power over the real people.

As to tariffs they should actually be in any trade deal we make because they are actually a good tool to use when labor laws and environmental laws are not met in other countries. They also do not need a deal with other countries to put them in place (except NAFTA outlawed them). But we do not put them in our deals because they would impact the profits of the 1%.

As far as I can see the only enforcement we have in the TPP is the multi-national corporations themselves. Good luck with that. They left the US because of the same laws we expect them to enforce in the other countries. Not happening.

to the days of FDR, but the poster keeps trying to lump them together.

business regulation and a commitment to full employment. It went well beyond "the actual trade of products".

upset about. What we call free trade today is not fair trade. It was then.

others. While it would have led to "free" (as in no tariff and non-tariff barriers) trade, it would not have been "free" from the perspective of conservatives due to all the "non-trade" (labor standards, etc.) that would have been part of it. Of course, the ire of conservatives towards it explains why congress refused to ratify it.

we have the casino market that is present today.

that was insuring the bank loans. They did not bother to regulate the banks that they were insuring. IMO they should not have been bailed out. They knowingly insured risky loans - take the consequences.

Had it been you and me AIG would have taken a look at our credit rating, our payment history and our indebtedness and insured us on that basis. They should have done the same with the banks and short of that they should have blown the whistle on the banks long before the crash.

Of course they pushed for trade. We were selling American products to countries whose industrial bases were devastated by war, while we made literally everything except shoddy trinkets.

had recovered from the war and would have a renewed manufacturing base? They did not foresee that Europe and Asia would not then use the 'push for trade' against us? I suspect they were not that clueless but were committed to international engagement and cooperation as evidenced by all the multinational organizations that were created under their leadership.

Or maybe FDR and Truman were devious at heart and secretly planned to 'push for trade' for a decade or two while we were the 'manufacturer of the world', then when Europe and Asia recovered, perhaps they figured their successors would reverse their trade policy and announce "The US is now out of the ITO we created. Here are the new trade rules we have come up with unilaterally. Hope you like them but if you don't, we really don't care. We are bigger and stronger than you. Thanks for playing the game."

Actually, FDR and Truman were really following in Democratic tradition of 'freer' and more trade and lower tariffs which had existed since the end of the Civil War and culminated in Woodrow Wilson's "mini-globalization" before WWI and his attempt at 'freer' trade and a League of Nations after WWI - both of which the republican senate shot down.

If Herbert Hoover or a similar republican successor (they believed in a high-tariff policy back in the day) had led us through WWII, they would have stayed true to their convictions after the war that high tariffs and little trade "protect" American companies. Of course, FDR and Truman led us through the war and immediate post-war period. All republicans could do was refuse to ratify the International Trade Organization. They could not enact higher tariffs or trade restrictions until Eisenhower became president which they did. But then Kennedy came along and lowered tariffs down again and initiated the Kennedy round of negotiations at GATT to increase trade and help developing countries.

Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 03:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Unbelievable.

This trade negotiation was started 10 years ago (here's your 'fast-track' ).

11 other countries got a dog in this hunt, but let's show them how America works!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/world/asia/obama-trans-pacific-partnership-asia.html?ref=politics

Big pharma must be having a coniption too.

It's also getting worse by the minute as Obama drops any pretension of being a Democrat and continues to try to paint lipstick on the pig that's the TPP.

"something was off" from the get-go...ie: by the fall 2009/early 2010 Debt Ceiling/Budget Crises etc it became fairly obvious what the hell was wrong.

Dems NEVER Drew a Line in the Sand and Said NO! They caved and capitulated to help the GOP get their legislation passed...Dems stood in front of the cameras Bashing the GOP this and the GOP that...yet at the Same time they too had their finger on the YES button on the day of the vote...only to come back to MSM's cameras to tell us all how shitty "it" is...how much we hated to do that, it's ALL the GOP's Fault...but We had NO Choice!
This after "we" kicked into gear...OWS emerged...Where were the Vast majority of Dems when the cops started Beating Peaceful Protesters? What happened to the Promise of doning a pair of Walking Shoes in solidarity with "the people"? When we made calls/emails/visits en masse', lobbied en masse' against/for any particular issue.....how'd That work out? Single Payer? Gun Control?

Bull Sh!t

We bought it en masse' for far too long..those who tried to tell others were bashed, criticized and then fed healthy doses of "Twenty-Eleventy Dimensional Chess".

It seems This always was the case....in a "good cop/bad cop" sorta way
"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and his Republican allies on trade are thinking of restarting their legislative push in the Senate. It's testament to a crucial miscalculation they made months ago."
http://www.timesunion.com/news/politics/article/Key-miscalculation-forces-Obama-to-weigh-new-path-6331873.php


I can't disagree that the dimensional chess games theory Worked but we were/are the gullible pawns.
just my personal opinion.

Great post stating truths.

the legislative "rules, loop-holes and other shenanigans" the GOP used and the Dems had None to use to Counter the GOP literally Controlling our congress while in the minority??

You know,....for kicking us hippies.

He was talking about Democratic tea party members.

Is there such a thing?

They seem desperate to unload some baggage onto the Democrats.

and others, including some here on DU are trying to imply that those on the left, or those here who oppose free trade are as crazy (irrational) as the Republican tea partiers.

Ridiculous like David Brooks. I only read it because the "Democratic tea partiers" bit was in the headline of his column.

He never really explained just who these new class of creatures were. Sometimes I read his column for a lark, and I always come away thinking that I have no idea what the column was actually about. Same thing happened today. Waste of ink.

the ACA.(let the insurance corp. write the law)

much as he underestimated Romney in the first debate and overestimated his own performance, I believe Obama has really hurt himself in pursuit of this trade agreement.

in the first term, he used to lecture progressives - who got him into power - about expecting too much. Well, we are the ones who got him back into office. Once again he's turned him back on us.

it sure Feels more like The Door is now Publicly Hard Slammed in Our collective faces.
He doesn't need us anymore

He needs to drop it and focus on reviving the American Main Stream economy. It's still a wreck. And people are getting impatient with the focus on trade deals that cost us jobs instead of building infrastructure and funding education here.

The winners in the 2008 stock market crash, those who have earned money from free trade, etc. need to pay taxes to fund recovery in the rest of the US. A recovery in which wages remain pretty much stagnant, the real unemployment numbers are too high and in which the real cost of living continues to rise faster than wages may look good on paper, but it does not feel good to working people.

Raise the taxes on those profiting from trade deals for massive repair and development of our infrastructure, job retraining (free not based on loans for education), free college, free day-care/pre-school, more money into Social Security and Medicare, and a social network for ordinary people.

And once all those measures are solidly in place, and the extreme right and Third Way Democrats accept that their economic models do not work, then we can talk about free trade.

the Dems realize that they are up for reelection in 2016.

In the meantime we should let all Medicare patients
know where the TAA money would come from.

Don't US weapons reach every square inch of the planet now?! How wide of a market? All the way to the edge of the universe? The universe is flat, dontcha know.

third world standards, for our own good, dontcha know.

were holding up Obama's promise to 'renegotiate NAFTA' as one more great thing about him. Now that he's pushing NAFTA on steroids, they're suddenly embracing the same old tired propaganda they used to mock-- accusing opponents of the TPP of being 'isolationists' and all the rest of that right-wing, empty-headed, deceitful nonsense. All to defend a politician, who will soon retire into great wealth.

It's actually embarrassing to watch.