I’ve Seen This Movie
Here we go again:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has voted no on the cloture motion to start debate on Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) financial regulatory reform bill — meaning the motion will likely fail, 58 to 42, short of the 60 votes needed. Republicans will tout this as an extraordinary victory demonstrating bipartisan opposition to moving forward on financial regulation until the bill is tried, tested and sorted. But my guess is that Nelson knew the motion would not pass, having failed to garner Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-Maine) vote earlier today, and decided not to vote for it at that point.
I don’t have the energy to be appropriately pissed off. Think I’m going to have some dinner and then play a game.
If the Democrats can’t figure out a way to make the GOP pay for blocking financial reform, we should just give up hope now.
And do we need to make a tag just for that asshole Ben Nelson?
April 26, 2010 5:45 pm
Posted in: Assholes, Democratic Stupidity, Free Markets Solve Everything, Republican Stupidity
138 Comments
138 Responses
Dave C - April 26, 2010 | 5:47 pm · Link
Hows about you just call the tag “that asshole Ben Nelson?”
Darius - April 26, 2010 | 5:48 pm · Link
@Dave C: Sounds good to me.
cleek - April 26, 2010 | 5:48 pm · Link
that’s just mind-bogglingly fucked-up. what a stupid thing for Nelson do.
David in NY - April 26, 2010 | 5:49 pm · Link
“figure out a way to make the GOP pay”
Can’t they start by figuring out how to make their own traitors pay? Would Harry Reid have brought this to a vote today if Nelson had told him he was going to stab him in the back?
Church Lady - April 26, 2010 | 5:49 pm · Link
It looks like it was more of a favor to Warren Buffet than anything else.
mellowjohn - April 26, 2010 | 5:50 pm · Link
amazing how one or two repubs crossing the line still gives a bill hyperpartisan support, but one or two dems crossing the line makes for overwhlelming bipartisan opposition.
asiangrrlMN - April 26, 2010 | 5:50 pm · Link
@Dave C: Ditto this. I am with John. I’m too worn-out to be really pissed. I need to eat breakfast.
The Main Gauche of Mild Reason - April 26, 2010 | 5:51 pm · Link
Poor Obama. Looks like it’s time for another national speech tour repudiating the Republicans…
Eric S - April 26, 2010 | 5:51 pm · Link
Am I wrong to say that Senate rules require someone who voted against cloture to support cloture in the future to bring the bill back up a 2nd time. I’m vaguely remembering Reid “crossing over” or maybe in was the last Gopper Majority leader who crossed to allow a second cloture vote.
Sentient Puddle - April 26, 2010 | 5:52 pm · Link
Nelson told CNN that he voted no because people weren’t thinking through the consequences, and the bill would adversely affect Main Street.
At this point, I’m wondering what fucking use he is. And I’m probably the one here who’s cut the fucker the most slack for being from Nebraska.
gbeaudette - April 26, 2010 | 5:53 pm · Link
I don’t think if all the Democrats plus Bob Corker (who’s apparently all talk and no action) would have voted for it, it would’ve been called bipartisan support.
Make them filibuster. The ads write themselves.
jayackroyd - April 26, 2010 | 5:54 pm · Link
“That Asshole” should suffice.
mr. whipple - April 26, 2010 | 5:54 pm · Link
Well, the dems didn’t screw around with President Snowe and play Charlie Brown and Lucy and RAMMED FIN REFORM DOWN THE GOP’S THROAT, and the gop cowered in fear because this is IMMENSLY POPULAR and they voted for it after all. See, that’s all the Democrats have had to do for the last year and a half, but they were too weak and stupid to try.
Except it didn’t pass. But that’s ok because the press will now report on things accurately and the GOP will look like crap and people will flock to Democrats this fall as a result.
Mark S. - April 26, 2010 | 5:55 pm · Link
Tell the Republicans to put up or shut up. If McConnell thinks this bill is inadequate, he should be obliged to offer something himself.
Zifnab - April 26, 2010 | 5:56 pm · Link
You must be shitting me. This is his excuse? The bill won’t break filibuster so he won’t vote for it? Clearly, Ben Nelson must not know how the game is played. Because if you have a highly popular piece of legislation about to hit the Senate floor that you, personally, do not support and you vote AGAINST it, you’re dumb.
Unless Nebraska is the only state in the Union that loves Wall Street more than Wall Street loves itself, this was either a seriously baffling under-the-table move by Nelson to give Republicans a fig-leaf of bipartisanship, or Nelson is just another wingnut idiot who couldn’t get on the Republican ballot the last time he ran for reelection.
Jamie - April 26, 2010 | 5:56 pm · Link
sigh
Brian J - April 26, 2010 | 5:57 pm · Link
Why are Republicans primarying Bob Bennett of Utah while Democrats are letting Ben Nelson off the hook? There’s not a single, even slightly viable candidate in the entire state who would challenge him?
Chuck - April 26, 2010 | 5:58 pm · Link
We have an “Assholes” tag already. I also thought we had a “41 seat majority” tag or something too?
Mr Furious - April 26, 2010 | 5:59 pm · Link
I’m more a fan of “that piece of shit Ben Nelson” myself…
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 5:59 pm · Link
I second the motion for “that asshole Ben Nelson.”
Tom - April 26, 2010 | 5:59 pm · Link
@Eric S: I think that’s right. Reid will change his vote to “no” so as to be able reintroduce the bill in the future. Which I hope is tomorrow.
freelancer - April 26, 2010 | 6:00 pm · Link
@Sentient Puddle:
Nope, here’s another Cornhusker who voted for Diva Nelson over Ricketts, who now feels that we voted for the World’s most punchable legislator.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 6:01 pm · Link
I think we need a poll for biggest asshole in the Senate. And you’d have to have tags for many of them.
Obviously, you can’t consider GOPers, because being a big asshole is redundant for GOP Senators. But Nelson and Lieberman would be big challengers for the title. Other conservadems to consider?
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 6:04 pm · Link
Upon consideration it does indeed appear to be a personal favor to Warren Buffett.
demo woman - April 26, 2010 | 6:04 pm · Link
Chuck’s on tonight.
Pangloss - April 26, 2010 | 6:06 pm · Link
Blanche “Kindness From Strangers” Lincon?
Mike Kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:07 pm · Link
@Brian J:
cuz he’s not up for reelection until 2012. we have to wait two years.
Violet - April 26, 2010 | 6:08 pm · Link
I don’t understand how the Senate works, but if there’s a chance Reid can introduce this bill again tomorrow, then let’s hope he does.
Reid knows he’s got a tough election fight on his hands. Financial reg reform is an easy way to show he’s done things people like. He most likely wants to see it pass.
He did get health care passed. Wasn’t pretty. Wasn’t as good as it should have been. But it passed and so did the reconciliation stuff. I hope he can get this passed too.
Mike Kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:10 pm · Link
@demo woman: yup, there’s only 5 weeks of chuck left. then we have to wait another 7 months.
Redshift - April 26, 2010 | 6:11 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: I’d say that we can also disqualify members of the “Connecticut for Lieberman Party” on the basis of redundancy, and just limit the competition to conservadems.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:13 pm · Link
@Brian J: Why are Republicans primarying Bob Bennett of Utah while Democrats are letting Ben Nelson off the hook?
Utah is the most Republican state in the country. Nebraska is one of the top five. They CAN challenge Bennett from the right and win. We can’t challenge Nelson from the left and win. Utah-Republicans does not equal Nebraska-Democrats.
Nope, this is Nebraska. Scott Kleeb was the closest thing to a liberal with any statewide viability and he got slaughtered in a Democratic year by someone who makes Nelson look like Karl Marx.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:14 pm · Link
@Violet: He can get it passed, he just has to give up some things to the GOP and Nelson.
In short, he has to piss off the blogs.
Robin G. - April 26, 2010 | 6:16 pm · Link
On the plus side, imagine the commercials this fall. All the crap about Goldman-Sachs that came out this weekend, and the GOP decides that this is the time to filibuster against financial reform? Dumb.
George - April 26, 2010 | 6:16 pm · Link
@Sentient Puddle:
Nelson told CNN that he voted no because people weren’t thinking through the consequences, and the bill would adversely affect Main Street.
Good grief! Does he not recall how things were in 2008 without financial reform? Main Street got killed.
Nelson’s statement is absurd and borderlines on lying.
Violet - April 26, 2010 | 6:16 pm · Link
@Nick:
Of course. That’s how it always works.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:18 pm · Link
I don’t know why there’s any downside to bringing it up again.
Ben Nelson is horrible, but, really, Democrats probably want to bring it up again.
One of the sticking points is on the financial consumer protections.
Conservatives want to make sure any new federal law in that area preempts tougher state laws.
One more in the loooong list of examples on why they are completely full of shit on “states rights”. The next time a conservative spouts that nonsense, just laugh in their face. They’re a joke. One of the main tenets of their supposed ideology is a complete and utter sham.
Also, does Nelson’s “no” vote leave Harry Reid free to vote “yes”?
I know someone has to vote “no” to bring it up again. Which way did Reid vote?
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:18 pm · Link
@George: I’m sure the anchors at CNN set him straight, right? I mean they wouldn’t let him get away with a lie, right?
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:19 pm · Link
@kay: Reid has to vote no if HE was to bring it up again. Otherwise it would have to be Nelson or a Republican.
George - April 26, 2010 | 6:19 pm · Link
@Brian J:
Why are Republicans primarying Bob Bennett of Utah while Democrats are letting Ben Nelson off the hook?
Utah is a red state and is thus is easier for the GOP to primary.
Nebraska is a red state and is thus harder for the Dems to both win a primary and then the general election.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:23 pm · Link
@Nick:
Thanks so much. I didn’t know that. However. I still need more clarity. How did Reid vote?
Ron Beasley - April 26, 2010 | 6:23 pm · Link
No – Assholes works just fine!
Toast - April 26, 2010 | 6:24 pm · Link
@David in NY:
Yes. This. Enough. Just enough.
Mark S. - April 26, 2010 | 6:27 pm · Link
@kay:
They are completely full of shit when they scream about states rights. No one who took that doctrine even remotely seriously could be in favor of tort reform.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:29 pm · Link
Berkshire had asked that previously written contracts be exempted from new rules on collateral, said the Democratic aide, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.
If that’s true, and they hadn’t stricken it, it would be a disaster, with Nelson’s vote.
God. he’s incredibly stupid. I mean that perfectly seriously. I think he’s dumb as a rock. After the cornhusker thing…he’s a freaking menace.
Yeah. He was getting away with that. Uh-huh.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:34 pm · Link
@Mark S.:
You’ll laugh at my idiocy, but I deal with a lot of conservative lawyers because I live in a conservative county.
I bought it for years. I used to have these long, principled discussions with these snakes, on states rights. I have this nuanced fully developed liberal argument, honed over several years of sparring with them.
I was a fool. They don’t mean a word of it.
No more of that. I’m laughing at them and walking away.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:35 pm · Link
@kay: He voted no. He had originally votes yes and then switched his vote.
MikeBoyScout - April 26, 2010 | 6:39 pm · Link
And do we need to make a tag just for that asshole Ben Nelson?
Yes!
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:39 pm · Link
@Nick:
Thanks again. So what of my alternate theory here?
The Buffet exception was in there, they struck it, and lost Nelson’s vote. But what if they hadn’t stricken it and had gotten the morons vote? They’d have the moron, sure, but they’d also have to defend the Buffett exemption.
Worse, right? Better he votes “no” and it stays stricken?
Tractarian - April 26, 2010 | 6:41 pm · Link
And the misleading headline on NYTimes.com….
/smacks forehead
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:43 pm · Link
@kay: Was it? or are they striking the deal now? Last I heard, the President and Reid scoffed at Nelson’s request.
Napoleon - April 26, 2010 | 6:47 pm · Link
@Eric S:
You may be thinking about in order to raise a motion to reconsider someone who voted against it originally needs to make the motion, so what happens is that if something is going to go down to defeat someone who is for it statigically votes against it so that he/she can raise the motion in the future.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:48 pm · Link
@Nick:
I can’t tell from the story. It says “was struck” which would indicate it was once in there. I’m sure it wasn’t “Warren Buffet’s derivatives”. Let’s hope it was “existing contracts”.
Anyway. Ether way. If that’s what he wanted for the vote, they cannot give him that, or face weeks of derision and scorn a la Cornhusker, so better to not buy him off and let him vote no.
Kryptik - April 26, 2010 | 6:48 pm · Link
From the Village Lexicon:
Full Nelson – When a Dem gives a circular argument about why they couldn’t vote for a Dem proposal involving the concept of ‘it won’t pass cloture, so I won’t vote to help it pass cloture’. As in ‘Full of it’ Nelson.
soonergrunt - April 26, 2010 | 6:49 pm · Link
@Dave C: This.
Zifnab - April 26, 2010 | 6:52 pm · Link
@mr. whipple:
This is hardly fair. We’re looking at the first volley and you’re absolutely flabbergasted that the Republicans haven’t given up yet. That’s more of a Democrat trait.
No shit the Republicans filibustered. They always filibuster. Mitch McConnell made a bunch of noise about being fair to the bill, and then Shelby and Snowe started backpeddling, and now we’ve got another stone wall.
This is where we all expected to be a month ago. The difference is that we didn’t wait for Max Baucus and the Finance Committee to dither for three months begging Grassley to come around. It took us half the year to get to this stage of the HCR debate. This time around the Democrats have parsed that down to a month. I’d call that progress.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 6:55 pm · Link
@Nick:
Nope. It was in there, and they struck it.
The WSJ:
The Senate Agriculture Committee inserted language into its derivatives bill last week at the request of Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) that would have exempted any existing derivatives contracts from new collateral requirements—the money set aside to cover potential losses.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:55 pm · Link
@Zifnab:
Except now we have to spend three months dithering to get Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe’s votes and water it down to the point that it will be effective, but will only piss off liberals.
I’m surprised no one has seen the GOP plan yet. It’s A.) force Democrats to drop their agenda and piss off their voters or B.) if it must pass, water it down to the point where it pisses off their voters.
and liberals fall for the trap every single time.
The Dangerman - April 26, 2010 | 6:56 pm · Link
NebrASSka seems apropos for a tag.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 6:58 pm · Link
@kay: ah. I didn’t know the language already existed. Yeah that would definitely explain Nelson’s vote then. That must’ve really ticked him off.
I bet Obama and Reid get a lot of praise from the blogsphere for standing up to Nelson.
Am I right?
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 6:58 pm · Link
@Napoleon:
I know some of the Senate rules are based on some weird “logic” called parliamentary procedure, but seriously, who the hell came up with this system? It’s like an Alice in Wonderland Rules of Order.
Consider:
Fax Paladin - April 26, 2010 | 6:59 pm · Link
@Nick: I think we’ve got confusion over the meaning of the word “strike.” The Buffett deal was stricken from the bill, as in deleted.
Rick Taylor - April 26, 2010 | 6:59 pm · Link
Did individual Republican senators ever vote to filibuster legislation backed by a Republican President? Not just vote against it, but join with a Democratic minority to attempt to refuse to allow it to come up for a vote?
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 7:00 pm · Link
@Nick:
It’s not a trap if you can’t get anything done without 60 votes and a damned 41-vote majority. It’s reality.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 7:02 pm · Link
@Nick:
Come on. They cannot give Nelson the Warren Buffett Protection Exemption.
They can’t do that. If the thing went on with that in there it would be a disaster.
I’m all for compromise, but this isn’t on liberals. It’s on Nelson.
Republicans would be jumping up and down with glee if it had remained in there. They get Democrats and Warren Buffett.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 7:04 pm · Link
@Nick:
I just want to make sure I understand you. You think it was wiser to buy off Nelson with a specific exemption for Buffett?
You’re willing to trade that?
Because I disagree. That’s a disaster both politically and policy-wise. It would turn the whole effort into a joke.
matoko_chan - April 26, 2010 | 7:04 pm · Link
Cole, you don’t get 11D chess a’tall.
The smart thing for the GOP would be to pass this quick and gtfo of the spotlight.
This is a highly unfavorable policy for them, because 61% of the electorate favor financial reform.
The bottom line is that financial reform will pass when the spotlight gets thermo-nuclear.
Today I saw an anti-McConnell commercial fusing the bankstah kill-the-bill lobby industry with republican obstructionism. Nice.
Obama is not going to let the GOP shape the teatards perception on this….he hit the ground running last week.
So given the GOP is going to lose on this issue, their best move is actually to move quickly to Obamnesty, in hopes of fear-mongering/redifining that like HCR before the midterms, and in hopes that the electorate will get bored or distracted, because immigration reform is going to be extremely tricky to handle with the teatards.
It is an unfavorable issue.
Cap-n-trade would be better to showcase right now too…..the longer the GOP spends filibustering bankstah reform against the wishes of The American People, the more commericials the DNC and the WH can make showing them as the cynical soulless rapacious grifters that they really are.
OTOH, if the wingnuts screw around with this long enough, we can have race riots in florida just in time to destroy rubio’s chance at the senate.
Sweet!
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 7:05 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: But we can get things done and we have…they’ve just not been to the satisfaction of the “base”
Maybe if we stop being so outraged that utopia isn’t being acheived and start really fighting for even half of what we want, the Republicans wouldn’t be so damn excited about forcing the Democrats to water things down for them.
Liberals don’t fight, they bitch.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 7:07 pm · Link
@kay: We could always give 2 Republicans want they want.
Either way, it’s not going to be pretty…and even when we do succeed, liberals will be pissed that we compromised and the rest of the country will be disgusted by the dealmaking.
We tried it to the ideal way and it failed.
so now what?
Citizen_X - April 26, 2010 | 7:08 pm · Link
@The Dangerman: Nebraskhole?
Mark S. - April 26, 2010 | 7:10 pm · Link
If this is true, there wasn’t any way to get 60 votes today:
Win the morning!
Napoleon - April 26, 2010 | 7:10 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts:
I am an absolutist when it comes to blowing up the Senate closure rules, holds. etc, etc, but I would defend the reconsideration rule. I was in student government at my state university and my recollection is that the rule is even in Roberts Rules of Order. You have to have a way to bring something back up if people have had a change of heart after further consideration, but it is silly to have someone who voted for it originally be able to do that, for obvious reasons. So sure, you can game the rule somewhat, almost any rule you can, but it is fair and serves a real purpose, unlike the anti-majoritain rules of the Senate.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 7:11 pm · Link
@Nick:
We got HCR done through reconciliation. FinReg can’t go that route. How the fuck do you get the assholes in the GOP to stop being excited about forcing the Dems to water down things? It’s their entire raison d’etre, to borrow John Goodman’s phrasing.
Seriously, no amount of “really fighting” (whatever the hell that means) is going to move an object that is so giddy about being intransigent. Their party is led by Rush Limbaugh, ferchrisake!
The only real way to get beyond this intransigence is to radically alter the rules of the Senate. I’d get behind a liberal fight to accomplish that.
c u n d gulag - April 26, 2010 | 7:14 pm · Link
@Dave C:
I suggest “Has-Ben,” instead of has-been.
Ben, and his ilk, have (has) theirs! You, me, the other little people, uhm, not so much.
HAS BEN!
Or, you could go with two wrestling terms. Half-Nelson, and Full-Nelson.
When he’s sometimes with us, which he is part of the time, he’s “Half-Nelson.” When he’s against us, which is most of the time, he’s “Full-Nelson.”
I’m also fine with “ASSHOLE!”
Sentient Puddle - April 26, 2010 | 7:15 pm · Link
OK well look everyone, we are all quite aware that this clearly makes Nelson an asshole. I’m 100% with you on that.
But the bill isn’t dead. Reid is filing another cloture motion, and it looks like there will be another vote Wednesday. On the same thing.
This ain’t health care. Republicans have no interest whatsoever in blocking this bill from now until November. People want this shit done.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 7:16 pm · Link
@Napoleon:
I get what you’re saying, but the unintended consequence is that instead you have someone who introduces the vote then vote against it procedurally, which is just as silly.
I could see keeping that rule if we get rid of or radically alter the filibuster, cloture, individual holds (especially secret holds), and the damned 2 p.m. unanimous consent rule.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 7:16 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: Republicans believe they’re in a win-win scenario. They either force us to drop the legislation, which helps them because Dems look incomptent, or force us to water it down, which will depress the Democratic base. Either way they win.
If the latter doesn’t depress the Democratic base, they don’t win then.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 7:18 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: Oh, and yes, we NEED to change Senate rules. That NEEDS to be a major campaign issue.
Although I wouldn’t be surprised if most people oppose it.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 7:19 pm · Link
@Nick:
fixed. And yeah, I agree with you.
ETA: B-psycho: I laughed. But we’d experience a pole shortage.
b-psycho - April 26, 2010 | 7:21 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts:
Fixed.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ - April 26, 2010 | 7:30 pm · Link
Sequels always suck compare with the original. Just compare these two lines:
“Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown”
“Forget it Harry, it’s Nebraska”
..and you tell me which one is better.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 7:33 pm · Link
@Nick:
so now what?
I think it will be fine. Obama’s already committed to derivatives transparency and the consumer regs. That’s what he wants. I agree with him. I think those are the two most important provisions.
I think he’ll get those. Cutting a horrible deal with Nelson at this point would be suicide. All we’d hear for the next two weeks is variations of the Cornhusker Kickback, and the whole reform idea would be discredited. I watched Nelson do that with health care, and it was not worth it.
James K. Polk, Esq. - April 26, 2010 | 7:37 pm · Link
Simple.
Phase 1: Bring it up for a vote three times a week till election day. Run ads explaining that Republicans are siding with Wall Street over Main Street.
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Profit.
Brian J - April 26, 2010 | 7:37 pm · Link
@Mike Kay:
Well, sure, I understand why they aren’t doing it now, but wouldn’t there be more talk of it? Or rather, shouldn’t there be more talk of it?
Douglas - April 26, 2010 | 7:42 pm · Link
“And do we need to make a tag just for that asshole Ben Nelson?”
“Just primary these assholes already”?
SiubhanDuinne - April 26, 2010 | 7:45 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts:
Not to mention that any Senator who uses it, no matter how strategically, opens him/herself up to charges of “voted against it before voted for it.” Given the toxicity of campaigns, who would willingly expose themselves to that meme?
Oh, and just wondering what Smudge thinks of all this. (I asked last night too, but AFAIK she ignored me.)
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 7:47 pm · Link
@SiubhanDuinne:
Sorry I missed this. She’s currently batting around and cat dancing with her new favorite mouse toy, “Sen. Ben Nelson.” I’ll ask her soon.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 26, 2010 | 7:48 pm · Link
Ben Nelson—Toupee of Steel
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 7:59 pm · Link
@Nick:
What Nelson wanted for this vote was a 100% non-starter. Absolutely not worth considering. There’s also no open offer for “what the Republicans want” because none of the “gettable” Senators has made such an offer yet, which means there were literally no votes that were available to us today that we didn’t take.
Given that, the option of making the strongest show of force possible to make the GOP sweat a little and improve the Dem hand in negotiations is so obviously and clearly a better strategy than rolling over to whatever Nelson demanded so as to avoid even the slightest hint of conflict that it’s hard for me to imagine how any even remotely sensible person could think otherwise.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 8:03 pm · Link
@SiubhanDuinne:
She’s pretty pissed. “Sen. Ben Nelson” is getting some serious claws and tooth action again.
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 8:04 pm · Link
@Nick:
A compromise to push a bill over the last yard is self-evidently distinct from an unforced error (okay, mixing my sports here) in the early minutes of the game.
SiubhanDuinne - April 26, 2010 | 8:04 pm · Link
@Lady Smudge:
Bite him in the neck, mmmkay?
terry chay - April 26, 2010 | 8:12 pm · Link
Does it matter? At least the vote of Snowe and Collins on cloture is on record. Let’s face it, Nelson will flip the instant they have a single R vote.
The way I see it, this just blows up the myth of the “moderate Republican.”
I’d like to see more failed cloture votes like this. It really speaks heavily to the “Party of No” meme.
LiberalTarian - April 26, 2010 | 8:16 pm · Link
@Dave C: I’m with Dave. “That asshole Ben Nelson” says it all.
Mike Kay - April 26, 2010 | 8:19 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: such a beautiful cat. Meow!
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 8:29 pm · Link
@James K. Polk, Esq.: Marc Ambinder explained why that wouldn’t work today
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....ill/39504/
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 8:32 pm · Link
@Nick:
Dammit, does Mark Ambinder not know that republicans are even less popular, and Obama is twice as popular as either congressional delegation (a commenter makes that point)?
Not to mention that Financial Reform (aka FinReg) is incredibly popular.
What a dickwad.
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 8:34 pm · Link
@Nick: I laughed at the ludicrous “Democrats aren’t popular (just forget that the congressional GOP is even less popular for a minute!)” section, and then cried when he trotted it out for a second run around the track at the end.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal) - April 26, 2010 | 8:35 pm · Link
Could you imagine the instructions and rule book for a game based on the Senate, or the House for that matter? Take the Senate or House rules and write them into a format that would spell out the rules for the game with an eye to explaining them plainly and briefly in simple language.
I wonder if people would just keel over and die while reading them. I do think it would at the least induce brain damage.
Cacti - April 26, 2010 | 8:37 pm · Link
This vote confirms that the “Moderate Republican” is a creature of fiction.
We have a better chance defeating an alleged moderate NOPer from a blue state than finding a better Dem that can win a Senate seat in red-as-a-baboon’s-ass Nebraska.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 8:37 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: HCR was popular too when it was first proposed. Ambinder’s point is that the longer this goes on, the more deal making that will have to be made, and deal making will look shady and will erode condifence in the bill itself. This happened with HCR and is the reason Democrats (and Republicans) are not popular.
But Republicans don’t need to be popular, they just need to Democrats to not be.
James K. Polk, Esq. - April 26, 2010 | 8:38 pm · Link
@Nick: Really?
Marc Ambinder?
His BS might apply to the first vote. But if the democrats keeping bringing up the bill, you’d better believe that “The Democrats aren’t popular” isn’t going to justify why FinReg can’t EVEN BE TALKED ABOUT in the senate.
If the Dems don’t cave they’ll be riding, uh, uh oh.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 8:41 pm · Link
@Nick:
Actually, no. Congressional politicians have been unpopular for years. It’s a false memory.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 8:45 pm · Link
@James K. Polk, Esq.: It’s not a question of whether or not it can be talked about. The GOP is proposing their own bill for a reason…to spin the Democratic bill as bank-friendly and theirs as people-friendly. Of course it’s completely untrue, but that doesn’t matter.
all they need is for the media to repeatidly make that case and put a question mark on everything a Democrat says and they win.
How is this not clear to any of you?
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 8:47 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: I think you misunderstood. HCR is not why Congress is unpopular. it’s why they’re a record low approval. They’re unpopular because of the way legislation is passed…people hate it, they hate the dealmaking, they had the compromises and they hate partisanship. All Republicans have to do is make all the fights include all three of the above and they win by default.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 8:50 pm · Link
@Nick:
You might want to check those pollster numbers I linked. The record low approval was in 1993-ish.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 8:53 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: and this is the lowest they’ve been since. I don’t get your point.
Joel - April 26, 2010 | 8:55 pm · Link
I don’t get yours, Nick.
Are you saying, somehow, that the public will react negatively to the Democrats forcing a popular bill – not a bill with popular elements, but one that is popular overall – through congress? I don’t think that will be the case.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 26, 2010 | 8:55 pm · Link
There is only one politician in DC that is popular, though barely. And that is Obama. When pollsters ask about any question these days, they might as well ask over and over again the same one. “Do you approve of Herpes” and that would apply to congress and any thing, or anyone, that has anything to do with politics. They are sick of it all, as I am most of the time.
Things are bad with the economy and jobs, either getting one or fear of not keeping the one they have. Everything else is small stuff right now, when you are worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over your head. And seeing your elected reps running around playing Dungeons and Dragons with each other, and a media reporting equal causation per pol parties no matter the facts of that, it is no wonder it is a pox on all their houses, right now. The only question left is whether people start to see and feel some improvement with their main worry, the economy, that will determine whether dems get wiped out, or just lose a fair number of seats.
arguingwithsignposts - April 26, 2010 | 8:57 pm · Link
@Nick:
Do you think that’s all the Dems’ fault? The GOPers were flirting with single digits there for a while.
The strategery of the Legislative GOPers seems to be mutually-assured destruction. I don’t know how you can prevent such a kamikaze move from affecting polling when you’re trying to move legislation through the process, which is as ugly as sausage-making.
ETA: “and this is the lowest they’ve been since. I don’t get your point.” lowest since =/= record low. Factual inaccuracies don’t help your case.
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 8:58 pm · Link
Shorter Nick: making deals with the GOP is deadly and toxic, which is why we have to immediately make a deal with the GOP. Right?
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:01 pm · Link
@Joel:
When the media is finished tearing this shit out of it, yep, definitely. We got our talking points. “Democratic bill protects banks! Republicans want to fix it, but are not being allowed to!”
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:03 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: It’s not the Dems fault at all, it’s entirely the GOP’s fault, but they win by default, no matter how unpopular they are.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:04 pm · Link
@charlequin: When did i say that? Never said that.
Adrienne - April 26, 2010 | 9:05 pm · Link
Umm yes. May I sugges “The disasta from Nebraska”?
Adrienne - April 26, 2010 | 9:06 pm · Link
Sorry – that was supposed to be *suggest
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal) - April 26, 2010 | 9:11 pm · Link
Since he likes to bring progress to a stop, how about: The Full Nelson
It’s what he’s full of that counts!
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 26, 2010 | 9:12 pm · Link
@Nick: Well, yes. That is the gooper tactic of scorched earth to turn voters off on all incumbents and win by attrition there of. It is the lowest of all tactics, but likely the only one the wingers had to go with. But it is not without risk to them overdoing it, and the big mitigating factor in favor of dems and against this kind of tactic is the continued popularity of Obama. Not only decent, by historical standards, on job performance for a first term presnit at this stage, but just as important favorability numbers being high, or likeability. You know I disagree with you on the particular issue of Finreg, as I think it will help dems and the media factor won’t be as big on this particular issue. But if peoples general feeling that things are getting better with economic security in their personal lives, then the Obama factor of likeability will give dems in congress a big boost. They will still lose seats, but not as many, IMHO>
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 9:22 pm · Link
@Nick: You’re either advocating the idea that the Dems should cut a deal immediately or, even more ridiculously, walk away from finreg because of magical thinking about how the GOP always win because, er, they’re the boogieman or something. “The media will always magically spin everything in favor of the GOP strategy” is not a reality-based position and therefore not one that will produce meaningful conclusions when used as an axiom.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 9:22 pm · Link
@Nick:
For someone who spends a lot of time warning against gloominess and despair, you’re very gloomy :)
It’s one pundit’s prediction. They’re wrong a lot.
They couldn’t compromise with Nelson on another Nebraska kickback. That’s a non-starter. It discredits the whole reform issue. Dodd said Nelson wanted to exempt all existing derivatives contracts from the reserve requirement, and he could not make that deal. They’ll have to find another way.
SiubhanDuinne - April 26, 2010 | 9:25 pm · Link
@arguingwithsignposts: Thanks! I think Lady Smudge has the right idea.
AngusTheGodOfMeat - April 26, 2010 | 9:26 pm · Link
I know! I know! What if we held an election this November and ran against their obstructionist and irresponsible performance in this congress?
Hey, just a thought. I realize the democracy is a foreign concept to this venue, but really, you should look it up. I think it might catch on.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 26, 2010 | 9:28 pm · Link
@kay: I seriously doubt there is going to be a finreg bill before the coming election. The only way one might get done is if repubs see that it is hurting them as we approach election day. But that is a long shot, and would rile their base who want complete galt for wingers cooperating with dems.
I don’t think Obama will sign a bill that didn’t put some harsh rules down for derivatives, which of course was one of the main causes for the meltdown and bailouts.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:28 pm · Link
@charlequin: I’m not advocating anything. I’m merely pointing out that the end result of this is likely not to be as positive as we think it is. I see a lot of excitement over “oh the Republicans made a mistake”
Republicans know what they’re doing. This could very well end up being a lose-lose again and we’d be left going “WTF happened?”
I work in the media, I know what’s coming. Trust me, they have their talking points ready. I’m telling you what they are.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:32 pm · Link
@kay:
The only other way to give a couple of Republicans what they want. And if they don’t want anything but delays…well then nothing happens.
And we in the media already have our talking points ready to make sure that delay only positively effects Republicans.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 9:35 pm · Link
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
I’m okay with that. I think they should stick it out.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:37 pm · Link
@kay: Ok, but I’m warning you…the media is going to do everything they possibly can to make this a win for the Republicans.
I mean everything, lie, decieve, everything.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 26, 2010 | 9:42 pm · Link
@Nick: You are starting to sound like Chicken Little dude. We know already that the media is fucked with false equivalence and the like. The sky can only fall so many times in one thread.
Mark S. - April 26, 2010 | 9:45 pm · Link
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Oh, Nick’s just getting warmed up. The night’s still young, my friend.
poicephalus - April 26, 2010 | 9:48 pm · Link
Quisling is available as a tag.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal) - April 26, 2010 | 9:56 pm · Link
Nick:
You sure know how to make someone laugh.
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:56 pm · Link
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
No, I really don’t think everyone does. I keep hearing people celebrate because they think this is an epic win and Republicans will go down in defeat for dare opposing reform.
THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Nick - April 26, 2010 | 9:59 pm · Link
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): Alright, ignore me, but don’t start whining if in July the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on this issue and you’re left wondering WTF happened.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal) - April 26, 2010 | 10:04 pm · Link
@Nick:
You’re sooooo cuuute when you are patronizing!
Mark S. - April 26, 2010 | 10:10 pm · Link
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
You’ll be sorrrrrrrry!
charlequin - April 26, 2010 | 10:20 pm · Link
@Nick:
This particular phrasing makes you sound exactly as dumb as Ambinder does when he uses it.
kay - April 26, 2010 | 10:28 pm · Link
@charlequin:
I think it’s part of their power, Republicans. The fact that liberals are always proclaiming how clever Republicans are.
Oh, they’re so disciplined. Such master tacticians. It goes on and on.
It’s like how liberals get all excited when they claim a wingnut supporter, on one or another issue.
“He’s a Republican, and he likes us!”
I don’t know: is this part of the problem? This may have led directly to The Myth of John McCain.
Something to consider.
RadioOne - April 27, 2010 | 1:28 am · Link
Yeah, whenever discussing Ben Nelson, one of the tags of the post should always be “Nebraska”...
Peter - April 27, 2010 | 8:15 am · Link
@Nick: It’s not a sure thing to be sure, but opposing a popular financial reform bill sure sounds like a good point for the Democrats to attack from to me.
Your argument is only coherent if you assume that the Financial Reform fight will go in exactly the same way as HCR did. And yeah, I guess it could, but let’s have a look at some ways that the fight is ALREADY very different:
1. No time-wasting. Instead of giving the Republicans time to disseminate their talking points into the general public, the Dems are pushing this one hard and fast. No obviously fruitless chasing after Olympia Snowe for months.
2. They’re actually fact-checking Republican talking points in a speedy and effective manner, keeping them from taking hold.
3. The Republicans have already suffered a major loss on an issue that they themselves described as Obama’s ‘Waterloo’. That changes things. It weakens the Republican alliance, makes it easier to pick off votes from the outside, because they’ve already seen that their obstructionism may or may not be effective, and being on the losing side of a fight is like political poison.
4. People take their healthcare really, really personally. It’s a very hot button issue. People on all parts of the political spectrum have strong, almost pavlovian reactions to it. Banking, by contrast, is much more abstract. Harder for the ignorant crowds to get invested.
Is the Fin. Reform Bill a slam-dunk for the Democrats? Of course not. But there’s plenty of reason to believe that FRR’s path to passage will be different from HCR’s.