Cory Booker and some other Dems BLOCK Drug Imports from Canada

[JA]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

[Fusionmunster]

Why is Booker being singled out? I see a couple well liked dems here on this list

I find it surprising that you of all posters would ask this question.

You seem to think that Booker is the right pick for Dems in 2020 when he is the exact opposite of what Democrats need. It shouldn't be surprising that he'd be singled out for a questionable vote when practically every media outlet considers him a" frontrunner" for 2020. I've repeatedly said that Booker wouldn't survive a Democratic Primary because he's the epitome of a politician that is bought and paid for. The Sanders wing of the Democratic party will reject him out of hand just like they did with Hillary. He's a plastic neoliberal.

This was a popular amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders, of all people, and Booker lacked the guts to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry.  

Such a stupid move.
 

Our state needs the Pharmaceutical industry.

Then stop price gauging the sick.

Thats for the people in Washington to regulate, not Trenton.

New Jersey has few industries. Biopharmaceuticals is one of them. Its no surprise both NJ senators voted against this. Its in the interest of our state. 

No offense but your state's pharma industry isn't more important than people's health.  Booker and Menendez are depriving a lot of people from being able to afford medicine that is necessary to save lives.

A senators priority should be their constitutes above all else.

[Fusionmunster]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

Good luck with that.

[JA]

The OP noted that this amendment failed because of the NAY votes from 13 Democrats, but what about the 40 Republicans who voted NAY?

[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?

[Shadows]

The OP noted that this amendment failed because of the NAY votes from 13 Democrats, but what about the 40 Republicans who voted NAY?

You can only blame your wife when she cheats on you instead of the scumbag loser guy! Gotta fix your home 1st!

[JA]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

Good luck with that.

Are you defending a Senator who places the interests of an industry over that of consumers? Especially one who belongs to a party that's supposed to represent the interests of the poor and working class? I understand the importance the pharmaceutical industry plays in the New Jersey economy, but that alone does not justify the direct harm blocking more affordable drugs from Canada would cause to the lower classes in New Jersey. Or are they just not as consequential?

[Fusionmunster]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

Good luck with that.

Are you defending a Senator who places the interests of an industry over that of consumers? Especially one who belongs to a party that's supposed to represent the interests of the poor and working class? I understand the importance the pharmaceutical industry plays in the New Jersey economy, but that alone does not justify the direct harm blocking more affordable drugs from Canada would cause to the lower classes in New Jersey. Or are they just not as consequential?

Its not as black and white as your making it out to be. But if this bill is as beneficial as you say it is, place blame on the no votes that came from states that aren't dependent on the industry.

[JA]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

Good luck with that.

Are you defending a Senator who places the interests of an industry over that of consumers? Especially one who belongs to a party that's supposed to represent the interests of the poor and working class? I understand the importance the pharmaceutical industry plays in the New Jersey economy, but that alone does not justify the direct harm blocking more affordable drugs from Canada would cause to the lower classes in New Jersey. Or are they just not as consequential?

Its not as black and white as your making it out to be. But if this bill is as beneficial as you say it is, place blame on the no votes that came from states that aren't dependent on the industry.

I agree, rarely are things that black and white. However, Booker and Menendez could've voted AYE, then, along with other Senators from states with a notable pharmaceutical industry presence, pushed for an amendment to whatever final bill is passed to include some degree of favoritism or protection for American pharmaceuticals. And yes, I do place blame on everyone who voted NAY on this bill - especially if they represent states without a large pharmaceutical industry. I understand wanting to protect your state's industries and workers - that's part of your job as a representative. However, this is an industry whose prices are extraordinarily and unnecessarily inflated - as are their profits.

[BlueSwan]

As someone who had great hopes for Booker, this is very disappointing.

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

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

The tea party lost republicans a few winnable seats in 2010 and then drove the republicans crazy. Can we not do that?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

We need our own Tea Party now to rid our party of its worthless, compromised officials and to put the rest on notice that we're watching every vote they cast. It made the GOP a more effective party; it'd do the same for us as well. These 13 Senators would be the first targets.

The tea party lost republicans a few winnable seats in 2010 and then drove the republicans crazy. Can we not do that?

They won though, and basically managed to derail everything running counter to their agenda from then on. Like if the Tea Party didn't exist, would the GOP be dominating to the extent it is today? I doubt it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Never forget it was literal 'moderate' hacks like Joe Lieberman and Rahm Emanuel who devastated Obamacare and crippled all policies that would have been remotely populist in favour of technocratic, hobbled solutions that inspired nobody and will be written out of history shortly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Our state needs the Pharmaceutical industry.

Even if that were true (and I highly doubt it is), putting your State's interests above those of all Americans is morally wrong in general, and a betrayal of your office as a U.S. Senator.

[Confused Democrat]

Our state needs the Pharmaceutical industry.

Even if that were true (and I highly doubt it is), putting your State's interests above those of all Americans is morally wrong in general, and a betrayal of your office as a U.S. Senator.

He's also acting as if other Democratic Senators from states with large pharmaceutical industries voted against the bill when that is simply not true.

MA has arguably the largest pharmaceutical industry in the country, and Elizabeth Warren didn't have trouble voting AYE on this amendment. This demonstrates to me that she has a backbone, and Booker doesn't.

Also, it's not as if Bookers reasoning for voting NAY on this amendment was "it would negatively impact my states large pharmaceutical industry and it's many workers." It was "I unequivocally support drug imports to lower cost but plan must include protections so foreign drugs meet safety standards."

What a BS statement from Booker. Bernie Sanders was absolutely right to call it out in his response:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Booker is sellout. Even Ted Cruz, of all people, voted AYE on this amendment! Am I living in bizzaro world?!

[Deblano]

FYI, this was a bill than even TED FREAKING CRUZ voted for.

No wonder Democrats keep losing, bunch of limp-wristed cronies.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Disgusting. Primary them all!

I agree with Tony.  This is disgusting.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Fck Booker.  His "charisma" will make him tough to beat in 2020, but that's why his feet will be held to the fire on this until that time.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, if Booker's primary concern was safety regulations, he could have worked on those without voting against the amendment.  By killing the amendment, he prevented debate on it.  He and all the other pharmacucks should have at least been honest with their intentions.

[LabourJersey]

While i don't fully agree with Booker's decision, pharmaceuticals is a massive industry in NJ. I mean a massive industry. And it's very difficult to avoid taking pharma $$ when a large fraction of your state's citizens (who can afford to donate big bucks) work in that field. Senators are supposed to look out for state industries to at least some extent.

The Senate is a national body and Senators should work for the common good. But that is why there are 100 senators--so that a single state's own issues don't overwhelm the rest. It's a fact of life--if you need a law that takes on Big Pharma, you're not going to find NJ representatives. Just like you won't find ND Senators voting against fracking anytime soon.

Again, it'd be better if the bill passed. But if Booker went against Big Pharma with a Warren-esque zeal he wouldn't stand a chance for re-election. He may not want to risk it all on a 2020 bid.

I like him, but Booker isn't "Profile in Courage" material. But almost no politicians are anyway.

[Deblano]

While i don't fully agree with Booker's decision, pharmaceuticals is a massive industry in NJ. I mean a massive industry. And it's very difficult to avoid taking pharma $$ when a large fraction of your state's citizens (who can afford to donate big bucks) work in that field. Senators are supposed to look out for state industries to at least some extent.

The Senate is a national body and Senators should work for the common good. But that is why there are 100 senators--so that a single state's own issues don't overwhelm the rest. It's a fact of life--if you need a law that takes on Big Pharma, you're not going to find NJ representatives. Just like you won't find ND Senators voting against fracking anytime soon.

Again, it'd be better if the bill passed. But if Booker went against Big Pharma with a Warren-esque zeal he wouldn't stand a chance for re-election. He may not want to risk it all on a 2020 bid.

I like him, but Booker isn't "Profile in Courage" material. But almost no politicians are anyway.

Progressives and Berniecrats will not be able to swallow that pill, understandably.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While i don't fully agree with Booker's decision, pharmaceuticals is a massive industry in NJ. I mean a massive industry. And it's very difficult to avoid taking pharma $$ when a large fraction of your state's citizens (who can afford to donate big bucks) work in that field. Senators are supposed to look out for state industries to at least some extent.

The Senate is a national body and Senators should work for the common good. But that is why there are 100 senators--so that a single state's own issues don't overwhelm the rest. It's a fact of life--if you need a law that takes on Big Pharma, you're not going to find NJ representatives. Just like you won't find ND Senators voting against fracking anytime soon.

Again, it'd be better if the bill passed. But if Booker went against Big Pharma with a Warren-esque zeal he wouldn't stand a chance for re-election. He may not want to risk it all on a 2020 bid.

I like him, but Booker isn't "Profile in Courage" material. But almost no politicians are anyway.

Progressives and Berniecrats will not be able to swallow that pill, understandably.

Yeah, how dare we demand that our politicians place the common good above petty sectional interests? What a crazy idea!

[Deblano]

While i don't fully agree with Booker's decision, pharmaceuticals is a massive industry in NJ. I mean a massive industry. And it's very difficult to avoid taking pharma $$ when a large fraction of your state's citizens (who can afford to donate big bucks) work in that field. Senators are supposed to look out for state industries to at least some extent.

The Senate is a national body and Senators should work for the common good. But that is why there are 100 senators--so that a single state's own issues don't overwhelm the rest. It's a fact of life--if you need a law that takes on Big Pharma, you're not going to find NJ representatives. Just like you won't find ND Senators voting against fracking anytime soon.

Again, it'd be better if the bill passed. But if Booker went against Big Pharma with a Warren-esque zeal he wouldn't stand a chance for re-election. He may not want to risk it all on a 2020 bid.

I like him, but Booker isn't "Profile in Courage" material. But almost no politicians are anyway.

Progressives and Berniecrats will not be able to swallow that pill, understandably.

Yeah, how dare we demand that our politicians place the common good above petty sectional interests? What a crazy idea!

I agree with you, that's what I was saying. Booker is nothing more than an empty suit who will make Progressives stay at home, leading to another Trump victory.

[WMS]

One of the few, very progressive, positions that Trump supports is allowing drug imports from Canada and allowing Medicare to negotiate prices. Both are predicted to drastically reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the US.

It failed.

Why?

Because 13 Senate Democrats voted to block it:

-Heinrich

At least now we have a list of Senate Democrats in the pocket for Big Pharma.

...

Well, perhaps this is what King meant when he claimed Heinrich was a moderate all those years ago.

Way to double down on one of the parts of the ACA that really annoyed me, Martin...

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

Our state needs the Pharmaceutical industry.

Even if that were true (and I highly doubt it is), putting your State's interests above those of all Americans is morally wrong in general, and a betrayal of your office as a U.S. Senator.

He's also acting as if other Democratic Senators from states with large pharmaceutical industries voted against the bill when that is simply not true.

MA has arguably the largest pharmaceutical industry in the country, and Elizabeth Warren didn't have trouble voting AYE on this amendment. This demonstrates to me that she has a backbone, and Booker doesn't.

Also, it's not as if Bookers reasoning for voting NAY on this amendment was "it would negatively impact my states large pharmaceutical industry and it's many workers." It was "I unequivocally support drug imports to lower cost but plan must include protections so foreign drugs meet safety standards."

What a BS statement from Booker. Bernie Sanders was absolutely right to call it out in his response:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Booker is sellout. Even Ted Cruz, of all people, voted AYE on this amendment! Am I living in bizzaro world?!

Right, because politicians actual reasoning for doing something is never a good reason that would get them crushed electorally due to unpopularity.

And lol at people being so stupid as to not see a difference between biologically complex drugs that have have the exact right doses, can be easily sold as something else or even faked, etc. to food products.