Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
22. Actually, his words at the end of his statement speak for themselves:
Thu May 24, 2012, 09:29 PM
May 2012
My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law, so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect.

I yield the floor.

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/iycmi-wyden-statement-introducing-congressional-oversight-over-trade-negotiations-act

The words "so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect" are exactly the right words that a responsible Senator should say when representing his constituants and when finding it necessary to introduce legislation so that he and others can have access to the information that the "A team" lobbyists already have.

If you are interpreting his words "My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law," without his qualifying words that follow in the same sentence, as meaning that he is doing the opposite of making a pro-labor stand and that he is unconditionally supporting the pending free-trade agreement regardless of what it provides, then you are obviously interpreting the phrase out of context. And you are reading it too narrowly.

You would have more support for an interpretation that he is anti-labor if he had a history of being anti-labor. He doesn't. That is one reason why many of his pro-labor constituents vote for him.
More "free" trade attacks against the 99% MannyGoldstein May 2012 #1
I was promised transparency Angry Dragon May 2012 #2
Me Too WillyT May 2012 #21
Go Wyden! I love that man. nt jannyk May 2012 #3
He's really pissed me off recently by giving cover to the Republicans on Medicare Arugula Latte May 2012 #5
Are you trying to hijack this thread by changing the subject and using an ad hominem attack? AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #10
Respectfully, my opinion of Wyden is much less than yours. stevedeshazer May 2012 #23
The topic is the secrecy over the free-trade negotiations, not which of us has the greatest AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #24
Are you on his staff or something? stevedeshazer May 2012 #28
Unbelievable. Congress is not allowed to see national policy dixiegrrrrl May 2012 #4
Saved me some typing, thanks. n/t Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #6
How bad can it possibly be? hay rick May 2012 #7
Our "transparent" executive branch is afraid the congress might leak it to (GASP!) the people. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #9
The ones that count: AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #15
So, is "transparency in government" to be replaced by "Opacity in government" as a campaign slogan? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #8
nope it's been changed to "you'll see what I choose to show you now stfu and stfd" leftyohiolib May 2012 #11
And, "eat your peas!" Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #12
K&R and Shared. patrice May 2012 #13
Hm. I've been wondering about the Chinese dissident and the Secret Service parties that... Peace Patriot May 2012 #14
+1 HiPointDem May 2012 #16
Obama's trade rep Ron Kirk is a sociopathic liar and corporate tool brentspeak May 2012 #17
It is very simple really. bvar22 May 2012 #18
And if you notice Ron Wyden is doing the same thing. pa28 May 2012 #19
Actually, his words at the end of his statement speak for themselves: AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #22
Tell that to the German and the Swedes. They have stronger union and more free trade pampango May 2012 #20
Which may give us some inkling whathehell May 2012 #31
Well, that's just changetastic. progressoid May 2012 #25
Thank you, Senator Wyden. JDPriestly May 2012 #26
For everyone's info, snot May 2012 #27
important - "NAFTA on steroids" does not even *begin* to describe this monstrosity inna May 2012 #29
Change the terms of the debate bl968 May 2012 #30
"Cheapest-labor agreements" is the more accurate buzz phrase. I'm going to borrow it. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wyden (D-Ore) revolts ove...»Reply #22