Feingold and the Financial-Reform Vote Hunt.

[babylonsister]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2010&base_name=feingold_and_the_financial_ref

Feingold and the Financial-Reform Vote Hunt.


There are a lot nervous-making rumors about who will vote for financial reform and why and when, which are summed up pretty well in this story. While passage is more difficult now than anyone had anticipated, it's not time to panic. The current situation reminds me of Washington right after Scott Brown -- also at the center of our current drama -- was elected and everyone despaired of health-care reform's chances to become law. We saw how that went. Indeed, if you think going back to conference to fix a few issues is too much of a hassle, don't forget the complex logistics of passing health-care reform through both houses.

Look at the fundamentals of the legislation: The financial-reform bill is popular, majorities have already voted for it, and there will soon be another Democrat from West Virginia in the Senate. Even the wavering Republicans haven't really ruled out voting yes. They're just playing coy to see what else they can get, which is why you're hearing a lot of "I need to read the bill." Give Harry Reid some time to work, and activists time to remind the wishy-washy of the political salience of these issues.

That said, it'll be close, which is why I'll second Kevin Drum's comments on Russ Feingold's decision to not only oppose the bill but also filibuster it. I don't disagree with Feingold's policy critiques, but the idea that blocking passage of this bill will benefit anyone is absurd -- there isn't going to be another chance to do comprehensive reform anytime soon, and this bill is an improvement over the status quo, as Feingold even admits. Should this bill die by Feingold's hand, he'll go down in history as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did during the 1994 health-care debate -- an iconoclast whose ego-driven obstruction helped kill reform for a generation.

Indeed, Feingold is well within his rights to vote against the bill, but his obstruction also hurts procedural reform in the Senate. The Senate should need to return to a norm where a filibuster is used to actually extend debate and provide for amendments -- but many of Feingold's favored reforms, though not all, did receive votes, and were rejected. At this point, extending debate is simply an effort to kill a bill that the Wisconsin senator knows would otherwise pass a majority vote. Buying into the idea that any major bill should require a supermajority is a recipe for a dysfunctional Senate for years to come.

Feingold is up for re-election this year, and running neck and neck with his Republican opponents. Wonder what voters will think when he tells them he had the chance to improve financial regulation, but when he didn't get everything he wanted, he took his toys and went home.

-- Tim Fernholz

[Jennicut]

1. Feingold is under an illusion that the legislation will improve. It probably will still pass

but now it will get more weak, not better.

[bluestateguy]

2. At the end of the day your Yes or No vote is all that really matters

A No vote because the bill is not pure as the white snow is still the functional equivalent of a No vote cast by Jim DeMint because he is against any regulation at all.

[TheKentuckian]

3. Bullshit hatchet job custom built to favor conservative elements

If Feingold is given what he wants then that is a vote gained not lost but of course this is covering for some craven corporate enabling sell out, who will bounce if a bill is produced that takes special interests from the pig trough.

The writer is a bullshit big corporations first sell out and pushing his tired themes in a deliberate effort to muddle and bully is no better.

[babylonsister]

4. Ha! Yea, that American Prospect, they're traitors, I tell ya!

You tell me...seems suddenly you can't take any criticism! Feingold is NOT perfect despite what you may think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Prospect


The American Prospect is a monthly American political magazine dedicated to liberalism. It bills itself as a journal "of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics"<1> which focuses on U.S. politics and public policy. Politically, the magazine is in support of modern American liberalism, similar to The New Republic and The Nation, which likewise target an intellectual audience.

The magazine was founded in 1990 by Robert Kuttner, Robert Reich, and Paul Starr as a response to the perceived intellectual ascendancy of conservatism in the 1980s. Originally it published quarterly, then bimonthly. In 2000, thanks to a grant from the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, it became biweekly. Financial and logistical difficulties ensued, and the magazine moved to its present monthly format in spring 2003. Kuttner and Starr share the title of Editor with Mark Schmitt, who is also the magazine's executive editor. The online version of the magazine includes an active blog, TAPPED as well a blog by Dean Baker.

[BlueIdaho]

5. The net value of Feingold's "no" vote

Is the protection of the status quo. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. American Prospect is not the author of the piece

Which is a signed piece, authored by Tim Fernholz. Lots of names in that post, none of them the author. Tim Fernholz.

[TheKentuckian]

7. I don't think anybody is perfect, if they were someone would have nailed them to a tree

I don't care about name dropping. I don't care who I agreed with yesterday on a separate issue nor do I care if I disagree with you today in an argument you'll make tomorrow.

The piece is bullshit and I've already said why.

[Catherina]

8. "similar to the New Republic" "dedicated to liberalism"

And that right there tells you all there is to know ladies and gentleman.


Liberalism is an economic theory that supports free market economics. How's the Free Market Theology of the Chicago Boys working out fer ya?

Milton Friedman’s disciples, ... are known as “The Chicago Boys”, after the University of Chicago where they learned their economic theories

Of course Feingold is against this travesty. Thank God for one honest man.

What a terrible, clueless article from the same clown, the same self-professed "Obama Apologist" who revealed his lack of intellectual integrity when he went after Matt Taibbi with typical apologist lameness. Even the readers at The American Prospect had enough of that. The comments are priceless

How does it feel to be a second rate Ari Fleischer? Apologia is all the so-called progress media has left.

Really, these countless apologies for Obama are getting tired. Your priorities seem a bit out of whack here.

I was waiting for it all day, Tim's anguished defense of his rich pals. And sure enough......

3 comments say you are a douchebag, tim. let's make it four, shall we ?

It's all very comical and not unfamiliar.

So now Feingold is going under the bus too? Come reelection time, don't waste time trying to find all the voters, we'll be under the happy happy hope bus.

[dionysus]

9. i congratulate you for fitting so many cliches and buzzwords in two sentences. but you forgot

"capitalist pigs"

-1

:rofl: