SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Fringe. What the New York Times thinks you are if you oppose corporate trade deals. (Photo: John Lillis/cc)
Tell Us How You Really Feel About Fast Track Opponents, New York Times
Feb 11, 2015
The New York Times' Jonathan Weisman (2/9/15) reports that President Barack Obama's chances of getting "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements are shrinking as "the political fringes expand on each end."
Later on, he notes that while some conservative groups support giving Obama fast track-the ability to sign a treaty that Congress cannot amend, but only vote up or down-this is opposed by "groups more on the fringe."
Weisman also reports that "administration officials say the voices on the left and right may be loud, but they are still a small fringe."
Toward the end of the article, Weisman writes that 150 out of 188 Democrats in Congress signed a letter opposing fast track. He notes that House Speaker John Boehner in the last Congress said he would need 50 Democratic votes to pass fast track, which would imply that there were about 72 anti-fast track Republicans. (Weisman suggests that that number may be bigger now.)
A hundred and fifty plus 72 is 222 congressmembers, or 51 percent of the House of Representatives. That's a pretty big "fringe."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The New York Times' Jonathan Weisman (2/9/15) reports that President Barack Obama's chances of getting "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements are shrinking as "the political fringes expand on each end."
Later on, he notes that while some conservative groups support giving Obama fast track-the ability to sign a treaty that Congress cannot amend, but only vote up or down-this is opposed by "groups more on the fringe."
Weisman also reports that "administration officials say the voices on the left and right may be loud, but they are still a small fringe."
Toward the end of the article, Weisman writes that 150 out of 188 Democrats in Congress signed a letter opposing fast track. He notes that House Speaker John Boehner in the last Congress said he would need 50 Democratic votes to pass fast track, which would imply that there were about 72 anti-fast track Republicans. (Weisman suggests that that number may be bigger now.)
A hundred and fifty plus 72 is 222 congressmembers, or 51 percent of the House of Representatives. That's a pretty big "fringe."
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The New York Times' Jonathan Weisman (2/9/15) reports that President Barack Obama's chances of getting "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements are shrinking as "the political fringes expand on each end."
Later on, he notes that while some conservative groups support giving Obama fast track-the ability to sign a treaty that Congress cannot amend, but only vote up or down-this is opposed by "groups more on the fringe."
Weisman also reports that "administration officials say the voices on the left and right may be loud, but they are still a small fringe."
Toward the end of the article, Weisman writes that 150 out of 188 Democrats in Congress signed a letter opposing fast track. He notes that House Speaker John Boehner in the last Congress said he would need 50 Democratic votes to pass fast track, which would imply that there were about 72 anti-fast track Republicans. (Weisman suggests that that number may be bigger now.)
A hundred and fifty plus 72 is 222 congressmembers, or 51 percent of the House of Representatives. That's a pretty big "fringe."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.