Re: TPA

From:marlondmarshall@gmail.com To: robbymook2015@gmail.com CC: jake.sullivan@gmail.com, jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, dschwerin@hrcoffice.com, kristinakschake@gmail.com Date: 2015-04-11 10:23 Subject: Re: TPA

Robby corrected my incorrect preposition. We have a meeting today at 5:30 to follow up from our discussion yesterday. Apologies for incorrect grammar. Thank you for flagging, Robby. > On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Marlon Marshall <marlondmarshall@gmail.com> wrote: > > Think we have a follow up meeting to yesterday at 5:30 with this group. Main purpose was to discuss this > > > >> On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Let's definitely do a call. >> >> >> >>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 6:53 AM, Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This is a alternative if we can't do pure dodge. Which I don't think we can. >>> >>> It says, I want him to have negotiating authority but not republicans. I've never supported republicans getting negotiating authority. (And if I'm elected I'm prepared to make my own case.). So what about Wyden hatch? I don't like that part but my real focus the final deal. >>> >>> This feels more sustainable than full dodge. >>> >>> Let's do call later today? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 6:28 AM, Jennifer Palmieri <jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Boo! >>>> >>>> My impression of the Podesta approach was more of a dodge then what you have here. >>>> >>>> For example, if she weighs in on length of the TPA I think that will be viewed as passive opposition. Now what you propose would be more popular with dems and labor and closer to her view - so maybe okay, just want to consider that dynamic. >>>> >>>> Think this is worth getting on the phone today to discuss. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 2:09 AM, Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Guys -- I talked to Brian Deese for awhile today. He thinks it is 90-95 percent that the TPA bill will drop Tuesday. >>>>> >>>>> I have been thinking about a version of the Podesta approach. >>>>> >>>>> What if she said something along the lines of the following? >>>>> >>>>> Look, I’m focused on the final deal, and whether it will measure up. If it does, I’ll support it. If it doesn’t, I won’t. >>>>> >>>>> TPA is about Senate procedure – and in any event it’s just a draft proposal making its way through a Senate committee. I want to focus on the substance: will TPP be a good deal, or not? We haven't seen the details so we can't answer that question yet. >>>>> >>>>> Let me say this about TPA. I believe that President Obama should have the negotiating authority to conclude a transpacific agreement that works for the American middle class and advances American leadership. But I don’t believe we should give an open-ended fast track to the next president. I hope I’m the next president, and I think I should have to justify fast track to the new Congress. And if a Republican is the next president, I certainly don’t want to give fast track to them now – heck, that's why I voted against fast track for President Bush. >>>>> >>>>> These are all procedural issues. The key for me is whether the final deal passes two tests: pass two tests: First, does it raise wages and create more good jobs at home than it displaces? And second, does it also strengthen our national security? Let’s wait and see that final deal.