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

[Chief Justice Keef]

See, this is why Booker can't be the nominee in 2020. This is why all that "he's the next Obama" hullabaloo doesn't matter, because in the end he's another bland New Democrat yuppie that the media likes to brand as "young and charismatic". What matters is the votes, and when this guy's accepting pharmaceutical money and rejecting bills that increase competition and lower drug prices, it's clear he's just another corporate shill with presidential aspirations.

The most nauseating thing is his "inspirational quote" tweets in the midst of testifying against Sessions. For once, Tom Cotton of all people is right; this guy only cares about the presidency.

[Shadows]

I posted this in another thread about the Heartland article -

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2]:233–34[3] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[4][5] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[6] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[7]

Global warming[edit]
The Heartland Institute opposes the scientific consensus on climate change,[45] but does not dispute that climate change itself is occurring. Rather, it says that human activities are not driving climate change,[citation needed] the amount of climate change is not catastrophic, and might be beneficial,[46][47] and that the economic costs of trying to mitigate climate change exceed the benefits.[7] According to the New York Times, Heartland is "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[48] Heartland uses a characterization from The Economist, "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change” as a banner on the main page of the environmental section of their website.[49][50]

Wow - Sir, Incredibly disappointing that you are pushing for an article by the Heartland institute.

Heartland is funded by Koch Brothers & Exxon Mobil among several other donors including massive funds from pharma industries

[Suburbia]

See, this is why Booker can't be the nominee in 2020. This is why all that "he's the next Obama" hullabaloo doesn't matter, because in the end he's another bland New Democrat yuppie that the media likes to brand as "young and charismatic". What matters is the votes, and when this guy's accepting pharmaceutical money and rejecting bills that increase competition and lower drug prices, it's clear he's just another corporate shill with presidential aspirations.

The most nauseating thing is his "inspirational quote" tweets in the midst of testifying against Sessions. For once, Tom Cotton of all people is right; this guy only cares about the presidency.

Average Americans don't care. They want an economic and national security agenda. Most Americans know someone who work from Corporate America in some sense. Yes, he's New Democrat, but he is more electable than Warren, Merkley, and other far left lunatics.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I love how someone with a maroon avatar is linking articles from the Heartland Institute to support her conviction that corporate New Democrats--who surely have our best interests at heart always!--must have some valid reason for voting for protectionism for an industry that gives them oodles of money.

I'm pointing out that there is an actual debate because the left here seemed to be knee-jerk hackish going against it. And a source potentially being biased doesn't make its words magically untrue. (plus it says in my sig that I have the avatar because it looks good, not because it fits my ideology).

And doing a bit more digging reveals this Department of Health and Human Services report: https://archive.hhs.gov/importtaskforce/Report1220.pdf

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I love how someone with a maroon avatar is linking articles from the Heartland Institute to support her conviction that corporate New Democrats--who surely have our best interests at heart always!--must have some valid reason for voting for protectionism for an industry that gives them oodles of money.

I'm pointing out that there is an actual debate because the left here seemed to be knee-jerk hackish going against it. And a source potentially being biased doesn't make its words magically untrue. (plus it says in my sig that I have the avatar because it looks good, not because it fits my ideology).

And doing a bit more digging reveals this Department of Health and Human Services report: https://archive.hhs.gov/importtaskforce/Report1220.pdf

We get it, you don't want lower drug prices. Too bad because up here in Canada they are wayyy cheaper and if they voted yes you could of had millions of Americans saving money on prescriptions. But they didn't because they don't represent you.

[Shadows]

See, this is why Booker can't be the nominee in 2020. This is why all that "he's the next Obama" hullabaloo doesn't matter, because in the end he's another bland New Democrat yuppie that the media likes to brand as "young and charismatic". What matters is the votes, and when this guy's accepting pharmaceutical money and rejecting bills that increase competition and lower drug prices, it's clear he's just another corporate shill with presidential aspirations.

The most nauseating thing is his "inspirational quote" tweets in the midst of testifying against Sessions. For once, Tom Cotton of all people is right; this guy only cares about the presidency.

Average Americans don't care. They want an economic and national security agenda. Most Americans know someone who work from Corporate America in some sense. Yes, he's New Democrat, but he is more electable than Warren, Merkley, and other far left lunatics.

You know what you are saying is ridiculous but you will arguing for the sake of it. If Centrists would always get elected over progressives then Trump would NEVER ever have been elected, certainly not over Clinton. Voters never gave a shi* about someone who wanted to ban Muslims, kill innocents, someone who was a sexual assaulter & blah blah!

Booker is unelectable - Half the progressive base of Dems or Sanders support don't like him & this isn't 2016 - There will be no keep Trump out vote even if Bernie campaigns for Booker. There will be massive defection to the Greens rendering Booker unelectable in a landslide loss to Trump!

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I love how someone with a maroon avatar is linking articles from the Heartland Institute to support her conviction that corporate New Democrats--who surely have our best interests at heart always!--must have some valid reason for voting for protectionism for an industry that gives them oodles of money.

I'm pointing out that there is an actual debate because the left here seemed to be knee-jerk hackish going against it. And a source potentially being biased doesn't make its words magically untrue. (plus it says in my sig that I have the avatar because it looks good, not because it fits my ideology).

And doing a bit more digging reveals this Department of Health and Human Services report: https://archive.hhs.gov/importtaskforce/Report1220.pdf

We get it, you don't want lower drug prices. Too bad because up here in Canada they are wayyy cheaper and if they voted yes you could of had millions of Americans saving money on prescriptions. But they didn't because they don't represent you.

You didn't even read it. My point is that acting like there isn't a legitimate debate about whether this policy actually does more harm then good is stupid. Did you even read the thing?

[SCNCmod]

Pretty much bipartisan consensus in NJ that any bill that negatively impacts pharma would be shot down. Pharma (and healthcare more broadly) is basically most of our economy (J&J, Merck, Becton Dickinson, Quest are all headquartered here, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK all have large offices in the state).

This is the correct answer... protecting the NJ's job creators.  But, my guess is this isn't black and white- given you have ppl like Heinrich, Booker, etc on the opposite side of Cruz, etc

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love how someone with a maroon avatar is linking articles from the Heartland Institute to support her conviction that corporate New Democrats--who surely have our best interests at heart always!--must have some valid reason for voting for protectionism for an industry that gives them oodles of money.

I'm pointing out that there is an actual debate because the left here seemed to be knee-jerk hackish going against it. And a source potentially being biased doesn't make its words magically untrue. (plus it says in my sig that I have the avatar because it looks good, not because it fits my ideology).

And doing a bit more digging reveals this Department of Health and Human Services report: https://archive.hhs.gov/importtaskforce/Report1220.pdf

For some reason I didn't notice that about your sig, sorry.

[Shadows]

Posted in another thread

Cory Booker, the champion of Drug safety voted for the Cancer Cures act which severely weaken Drugs safety & FDA. Cancer Cures has many truly fantastic aspects but they hid some really bad features into that!

If it sounds like the bill has been carefully crafted to have a little something for everyone, that's because it has. The 21st Century Cures Act was the most heavily lobbied health care bill in recent history, according to Kaiser Health News. More than 1,455 lobbyists representing 400 companies and organizations were involved—that’s nearly three lobbyists for every one Congress member.

Perhaps most concerning is that the bill allows companies in some instances to run smaller, quicker clinical trials, submit only data summaries rather than raw data files, or dodge having to do trials altogether. For instance, the bill directs the FDA to consider using “real world evidence” when evaluating whether an FDA-approved drug can be used in a new way. That real world evidence could be anecdotes, observations, or other data collected by a drug company that wasn’t the result of a randomized controlled clinical trial, the current gold standard. And in some instances, the bill would have the FDA evaluate “summary level reviews” of drug data, potentially allowing companies to cherry-pick data and hide problems.

Ohh Booker is so concerned about Drug Safety from Canadian drugs many of whom are manufactured in the same factory as US drugs.

People should wait & see what bill Booker introduces to solve this problem.

[uti2]

See, this is why Booker can't be the nominee in 2020. This is why all that "he's the next Obama" hullabaloo doesn't matter, because in the end he's another bland New Democrat yuppie that the media likes to brand as "young and charismatic". What matters is the votes, and when this guy's accepting pharmaceutical money and rejecting bills that increase competition and lower drug prices, it's clear he's just another corporate shill with presidential aspirations.

The most nauseating thing is his "inspirational quote" tweets in the midst of testifying against Sessions. For once, Tom Cotton of all people is right; this guy only cares about the presidency.

Average Americans don't care. They want an economic and national security agenda. Most Americans know someone who work from Corporate America in some sense. Yes, he's New Democrat, but he is more electable than Warren, Merkley, and other far left lunatics.

You know what you are saying is ridiculous but you will arguing for the sake of it. If Centrists would always get elected over progressives then Trump would NEVER ever have been elected, certainly not over Clinton. Voters never gave a shi* about someone who wanted to ban Muslims, kill innocents, someone who was a sexual assaulter & blah blah!

Booker is unelectable - Half the progressive base of Dems or Sanders support don't like him & this isn't 2016 - There will be no keep Trump out vote even if Bernie campaigns for Booker. There will be massive defection to the Greens rendering Booker unelectable in a landslide loss to Trump!

Obama in 2008 was the most radical candidate running, he opposed the foreign policies of Mccain/Hillary, attacked them on trade, etc. Trump was the same this year. Obama ran as a progressive, but governed as a moderate, the fact that Obama won shows you that a progressive can win.

Of course, the centrists don't want to admit that Obama won due to his progressive appeals, and want to leave out Obama's number's skyrocketing after Lehman Brothers collapsed, but in reality, that's what happened. It wasn't due to him being black or talking nicely, it was the policies he ran on, and the core economic appeal he maintained.

[Fusionmunster]

As has been stated in this thread, why would Booker vote for something that could potentially harm his states economy? New Jersey is dependent on Pharmaceutical and BioTech companies. And why is it surprising that Booker has a large amount of donations from Pharmaceutical companies? Is it surprising that Manchin has donations from the coal industry or Murkowski from Big Oil?

[houseonaboat]

Pretty much bipartisan consensus in NJ that any bill that negatively impacts pharma would be shot down. Pharma (and healthcare more broadly) is basically most of our economy (J&J, Merck, Becton Dickinson, Quest are all headquartered here, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK all have large offices in the state).

This is the correct answer... protecting the NJ's job creators.  But, my guess is this isn't black and white- given you have ppl like Heinrich, Booker, etc on the opposite side of Cruz, etc

Yeah I mean if I were Booker's political advisor I would have said "Vote for the amendment, but then release a generic nothingburger statement about how you want to make drugs more affordable for New Jerseyans while protecting and keeping our industries competitive".

It was a dumb and inexplicable decision to vote against it though, something that makes me think he plans on seeking reelection than heading to the WH. Even New Jersey pharma isn't powerful enough to stop Cory Booker; he's a black Democrat in New Jersey with a strong base in Essex and Hudson County, meaning he's essentially guaranteed a win. The only reason to vote against it is if you think the bill is bad for your state -- which it clearly is.

[Shadows]

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.

[Fusionmunster]

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.

Everytime you post, I think I like my senator more and more.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

[The Other Castro]

Anecdotal, but the progressives group on campus at GW is pretty pissed at Booker.

[Tintrlvr]

See, this is why Booker can't be the nominee in 2020. This is why all that "he's the next Obama" hullabaloo doesn't matter, because in the end he's another bland New Democrat yuppie that the media likes to brand as "young and charismatic". What matters is the votes, and when this guy's accepting pharmaceutical money and rejecting bills that increase competition and lower drug prices, it's clear he's just another corporate shill with presidential aspirations.

The most nauseating thing is his "inspirational quote" tweets in the midst of testifying against Sessions. For once, Tom Cotton of all people is right; this guy only cares about the presidency.

Sounds like Barack Obama as a Senator, to be honest. Pretty bland yuppie, lots of moderate votes that true leftists didn't like, kind words about conservative figures.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Obama in 2008 was the most radical candidate running, he opposed the foreign policies of Mccain/Hillary, attacked them on trade, etc. Trump was the same this year. Obama ran as a progressive, but governed as a moderate, the fact that Obama won shows you that a progressive can win.

Of course, the centrists don't want to admit that Obama won due to his progressive appeals, and want to leave out Obama's number's skyrocketing after Lehman Brothers collapsed, but in reality, that's what happened. It wasn't due to him being black or talking nicely, it was the policies he ran on, and the core economic appeal he maintained.

-This is nonsense. Obama's voting record was to the right of Hillary 08 and Hillary 08 ran on the only truly universal healthcare plan in the Dem primary and supported withdrawal of nearly all US troops from Iraq within a year. Obama, meanwhile, opposed the strong individual mandate HRC 08 advocated and called for withdrawing troops from Iraq on the basis of a timetable. True; Obama was the "change" candidate (thus his popularity among the youth), but the least centrist candidates of 2008 were HRC (thus her overperformance in New Hampshire) and Ron Paul.

[uti2]

Obama in 2008 was the most radical candidate running, he opposed the foreign policies of Mccain/Hillary, attacked them on trade, etc. Trump was the same this year. Obama ran as a progressive, but governed as a moderate, the fact that Obama won shows you that a progressive can win.

Of course, the centrists don't want to admit that Obama won due to his progressive appeals, and want to leave out Obama's number's skyrocketing after Lehman Brothers collapsed, but in reality, that's what happened. It wasn't due to him being black or talking nicely, it was the policies he ran on, and the core economic appeal he maintained.

-This is nonsense. Obama's voting record was to the right of Hillary 08 and Hillary 08 ran on the only truly universal healthcare plan in the Dem primary and supported withdrawal of nearly all US troops from Iraq within a year. Obama, meanwhile, opposed the strong individual mandate HRC 08 advocated and called for withdrawing troops from Iraq on the basis of a timetable. True; Obama was the "change" candidate (thus his popularity among the youth), but the least centrist candidates of 2008 were HRC (thus her overperformance in New Hampshire) and Ron Paul.

Obama criticized Hillary's iraq war vote, and he was far less hawkish than Hillary. Hillary was closer to Mccain's position regarding Russia. Obama also slammed Hillary over NAFTA and Bill's record. With regards to healthcare, there were disputes between both candidates, but both had supported previously to the primary some type of single payer system.  Obama used a lot of Bernie-style attacks against Hillary, that's why Obama was seen as a 'change', Bernie was the same change candidate this year. The difference between Obama and Bernie is that Obama also had the black vote. Hispanics in the SW voted for Hillary in 2008 just like they did this year.

[Tintrlvr]

Obama in 2008 was the most radical candidate running, he opposed the foreign policies of Mccain/Hillary, attacked them on trade, etc. Trump was the same this year. Obama ran as a progressive, but governed as a moderate, the fact that Obama won shows you that a progressive can win.

Of course, the centrists don't want to admit that Obama won due to his progressive appeals, and want to leave out Obama's number's skyrocketing after Lehman Brothers collapsed, but in reality, that's what happened. It wasn't due to him being black or talking nicely, it was the policies he ran on, and the core economic appeal he maintained.

-This is nonsense. Obama's voting record was to the right of Hillary 08 and Hillary 08 ran on the only truly universal healthcare plan in the Dem primary and supported withdrawal of nearly all US troops from Iraq within a year. Obama, meanwhile, opposed the strong individual mandate HRC 08 advocated and called for withdrawing troops from Iraq on the basis of a timetable. True; Obama was the "change" candidate (thus his popularity among the youth), but the least centrist candidates of 2008 were HRC (thus her overperformance in New Hampshire) and Ron Paul.

Obama criticized Hillary's iraq war vote, and he was far less hawkish than Hillary. Hillary was closer to Mccain's position regarding Russia. Obama also slammed Hillary over NAFTA and Bill's record. With regards to healthcare, there were disputes between both candidates, but both had supported previously to the primary some type of single payer system.  Obama used a lot of Bernie-style attacks against Hillary, that's why Obama was seen as a 'change', Bernie was the same change candidate this year. The difference between Obama and Bernie is that Obama also had the black vote. Hispanics in the SW voted for Hillary in 2008 just like they did this year.

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.

[uti2]

Obama in 2008 was the most radical candidate running, he opposed the foreign policies of Mccain/Hillary, attacked them on trade, etc. Trump was the same this year. Obama ran as a progressive, but governed as a moderate, the fact that Obama won shows you that a progressive can win.

Of course, the centrists don't want to admit that Obama won due to his progressive appeals, and want to leave out Obama's number's skyrocketing after Lehman Brothers collapsed, but in reality, that's what happened. It wasn't due to him being black or talking nicely, it was the policies he ran on, and the core economic appeal he maintained.

-This is nonsense. Obama's voting record was to the right of Hillary 08 and Hillary 08 ran on the only truly universal healthcare plan in the Dem primary and supported withdrawal of nearly all US troops from Iraq within a year. Obama, meanwhile, opposed the strong individual mandate HRC 08 advocated and called for withdrawing troops from Iraq on the basis of a timetable. True; Obama was the "change" candidate (thus his popularity among the youth), but the least centrist candidates of 2008 were HRC (thus her overperformance in New Hampshire) and Ron Paul.

Obama criticized Hillary's iraq war vote, and he was far less hawkish than Hillary. Hillary was closer to Mccain's position regarding Russia. Obama also slammed Hillary over NAFTA and Bill's record. With regards to healthcare, there were disputes between both candidates, but both had supported previously to the primary some type of single payer system.  Obama used a lot of Bernie-style attacks against Hillary, that's why Obama was seen as a 'change', Bernie was the same change candidate this year. The difference between Obama and Bernie is that Obama also had the black vote. Hispanics in the SW voted for Hillary in 2008 just like they did this year.

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". 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.

Obama won all the same white western states as Bernie, and Hillary won the same Hispanic SW states, the main difference is the south, the black vote there carried Obama.

The Left-Wing Anti-War crowd considered Hillary the 'war-mongering neocon' candidate they did this year as they did in 2008, Obama was seen as a break from that, just as Bernie was this year.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Tory Dem.