I’m not a national pundit, so I’m unqualified to properly deconstruct the narrative, but could it be that the reason Russ Feingold is in trouble is that he’s an unpalatable mix of trimmer and righteous prig?
Russ’ trimmer nature is on full display in his most recent campaign ad. Since Russ’s likely opponent is a teabagger, his latest ad touts his fiscal conservative cred, including all the good words ever said about him by organizations like FreedomWorks and Club for Growth.
At the same time, simon-pure Russ is the lone Democrat who won’t vote for the finance reform bill (or even for cloture), because it’s not tough enough. You might think that his holding out just ends up weakening the bill as ever more whorish compromises have to be made with persuadable Republicans, but you’re wrong, according to the great man himself:
In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one. Their decision is clear.
Which Russ is it: Russ the proto-teabagger? Or Russ the virtuous warrior against the nefarious cabal? I’m confused, and perhaps voters in his state are, too.
Bulworth
Actually, this conclusion seems pretty much on target.
Corner Stone
The only principles a politician has are the ones that get them re-elected.
Face
To get easily elected in Wisconsin, all he has to do is get “secretly” videotaped in a bar drinking Lienies or Old Style, vociferously bashing anyone and anything from Illinois. Get that viral and he’s 20 points up.
Gus
He’s gotta win in an unfavorable political environment in a state with a significant number of rednecks (sorry Sconnies, you know it’s true). Not a big fan of his opposition to the finance reform bill (he’s right that it’s weak, but wrong in thinking they’d get something better). At any rate his opposition to the Iraq war means I’ll forgive him a large number of sins, ’cause he was right on a very big deal that took a lot of political courage.
Uplift
I will forgive Feingold almost anything for being the sole vote against the PATRIOT Act.
Gus
Of course I could change my mind after viewing the ad.
Mark S.
Good luck Russ, but I think the teabaggers will remember your votes on the stimulus and HCR long before they remember your valiant pork-busting back in 2005.
DeanNC
Start the countdown until Freedom Works and Club for Growth come out fully for the teabagger over Feingold…3…2…1…
Admiral_Komack
I guess Russ will be criticizing the President on “Rush Limbaugh” any day now.
srv
We can punch hippies when they’re up, we can punch them while they’re down. And when we pander to Republicans, it’s the hippies fault too.
The best path to victory is surrendering at every opportunity.
Josh
Probably he’s ashamed of having voted to confirm Ashcroft and thinks he’s gotta take the “principled” stand now. Unfortunate.
HRT
Seems to me like Feingold’s actually principled to a fault. It’s hard to say that his support for health care reform (and hard-core support for the public option) won him any conservative support. He took hell for it at town hall meetings. On the other hand, he’s a big proponent for gun rights, which probably angers a lot of lefties.
Don’t attack him because you can’t pigeon-hole him. I can’t think of a single instance in which he changed his view on a matter because it was politically expedient. In the end, he’s more of a Glenn Greenwald-style progressive (hence the only Senator to vote “no” to the Patriot Act) than he is a toe-the-line Democrat. He says what he means, and I find it refreshing.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Uplift: Don’t forget, he was one of the eight, along with Wellstone and Dorgan, who voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Chad S
I 100% agree that confusing the voters might be hurting his poll numbers, but that will change once the campaign goes into full swing in a few weeks. I doubt he’s in much real trouble right now.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Feingold sure is an odd duck, and I can’t figure out why he does what he does much of the time. But I wouldn’t worry much about him getting reelected. Hardly any other Senator spends the time he does doing face to face grassroots politicking. I suspect his constituents mutter to themselves “what is wrong with that boy”, but they like him and him showing up.
As incorrigible and nonsensical as he can be, he is still much preferable to the wingnut. And in this particularly hard year for liberals in much of the country, I don’t take their patronizing to wingers in ads all that serious. I do look at their long term voting record, and his isn’t all that bad.
Adam Hyland
I don’t really get the thrust of this post. Feingold voted against the Iraq war, voted against the Patriot act, against the military commissions act, and against the retroactive immunity for telecoms. He is a solid and consistent liberal voice in the Senate, one of the very few. He also happens to be a divorced jew, eliminating (in his words) any chance of national office, so he devotes his time to representing Wisconsin progressives not kissing ass.
As a result, he has some views about the financial reform bill which don’t jive with the median (or 60th) senator. He doesn’t like the bill and doesn’t want to vote for it. He didn’t vote for the version sent into committee, so I don’t get where the sudden outrage is welling from.
And unlike the health care bill, I’m not certain that the financial reform bill is worth the vitriol. Obama campaigned on the health care reform bill, HCR is vital to the long term health of this country and offers some real gains for workers. The benefits of the financial reform bill are much more limited. We eliminate interchange fees. We establish a consumer protection agency, but exclude fucking car dealerships. We don’t fix the rating agencies. We don’t fix derivatives (clearinghouses aren’t magic pixie dust). We don’t get a functioning Volker rule (Read economics of contempt if you want a good take on how easy it will be for lawyers to skirt that rule). We get a resolution authority but no strong sense of how or when it will come into effect. The fed gets audited, but we won’t see the info for years. the preemption bit is good.
It is at best a mixed bag. And a lot of the downside comes from pleasing people like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson and Scoot Brown, not from pleasing Russ Feingold. And remember that Harry Reid has the ability to force republicans to actually filibuster the bill (like he did when debate started) and pass it with less than 60 votes, assuming the bill is important enough to keep the senate in session the rest of the summer and put off other work for a month or so. My guess is it isn’t.
On health care, liberal democrats ate shit and called it ice cream because we needed a policy victory and we needed HCR. Do the same conditions exist for financial reform? Can you make a cogent case that Russ is wrong? Shouldn’t we blame the democratic party for letting scott brown win Ted Kennedy’s seat for crying out loud? Should we blame WV for not appointing a replacement for Bryd? Why is it, again, that the liberal end of the spectrum takes one for the team?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
I’m not sure I understand your point here. Feingold is trying to project an image as both fiscally responsible and a warrior against Wall Street. This is SOP for just about any politician, isn’t it? Is there a different narrative you prefer that he tries on the electorate?
Batocchio
Eh, Feingold has been on the right side of important issues much more often than most other senators. Typically, he also meets with constituents and does listening sessions throughout the state. “Wasteful spending” is pretty vague, and could just as easily apply to actual wasteful spending at the Pentagon as it could to useful spending. While I don’t agree with voting against the financial reform bill, Feingold’s critique is correct that it doesn’t go far enough. So why pick on Feingold? I’ll save my ire for the real scumbags – the Blue Dogs and the entire GOP.
Mr Furious
I actually believe Feingold is correct in his analysis of the bill and its authors, but his posturing and withholding of his vote are not helping.
Kansas Guy
To answer your question, he’s a liberal or progressive as they’re now called, as am I. The reason your confused is because he’s about the only one of those in the Senate, at least in the Democratic party. Someday if the Dems ever get about 90 seats we might see another but until then they must bow their heads to the Repub minority. Not so much for Russ.
freelancer
@Batocchio:
I agree with this, don’t get me started on my state’s “Democratic” Senator, Ben “Drama Queen” Nelson.
Lev
Feingold does this sort of stuff a lot. Remember a year or two back when the National Journal rankings put him as the most conservative Democratic senator? For better or worse, being a team player (or a good foot soldier, if you prefer) is simply not something that Democrats in general really seem to value. Republicans do tend to value this sort of behavior, but it has costs. See: Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, Charlie Crist, etc.
Zam
Or it could just be that the primary is a way off still and he isn’t running that many ads right now. Currently he is just a generic Dem to many people. There are however many anti-dem ads going on so the name is in the gutter.
Edit: I forgot to add that every single politician I have ever heard of touts their fiscal conservative credentials. Debt is bad so they will always say they don’t like it.
JoePo
While Wisconsin has given us some good progressives (or if not good, then just progressives), it also has a strain of batshit conservatives who somehow get swept into power. Why? I don’t know, why do they call their water fountains bubblers?
While Feingold balking at the current financial reform bill is bad, he has taken the lead on some good issues. And bitching about his campaign ads seems a bit priggish to me.
Tom Hilton
@HRT: refreshing, maybe (my mileage varies on this), but Senators aren’t there to say what they mean; they’re there to get things done. Feingold’s ‘principles’ may be terribly precious to him, but they appear to be an impediment to accomplishing anything.
Zifnab
@Gus: @Uplift: This.
Feingold has made too many good votes for me to get pissy over holding out on what has been an abysmally watered down Fin-Reg. His principled hold-out is causing some pain, certainly no more pain than so many of the other Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson blue dog holdouts. I’m not sure if he’s costing Fin Reg real teeth or just making the paper tiger look extra papery.
HRT
@JoePo: Because they’re bubblers.
wengler
This post reminds me a lot of the anti-Dennis Kucinich stuff that came out of the Great Orange Satan in 2008. There’s nothing better than punching the hippies to the left.
The administration’s position on the economy only looks rational compared to the craziness coming from the 19th Century reformists of the right. Every expert agrees that repealing Glass-Steagall was a terrible idea that destroyed the economy on the Wall Street roulette wheel. So the barrier between investment and commercial banks is restored in the financial reforms right? No, of course not. That would be nuts. What about feel good talk and the creation of a new agency whose job appears to be reassuring the public that the economy isn’t built on fraud and corruption? Sure, sounds good.
Honestly, Wisconsin doesn’t really deserve a Senator of the caliber of Feingold. He’s wrecked at least two marriages to workaholism and has an event in each county each year.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Wisconsinites elect a “bidnessman” empty suit Republican though. Remember these are the people that elected Tailgunner Joe to office.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
From our big luvable Joey B, he ain’t worried none.
He is literally correcto.
Zam
@JoePo: I have never heard any person in the state of Wisconsin call a water fountain a bubbler. Might be a southern Wisconsin thing since I haven’t spent much time down their in years.
Maude
Pass the damn bill
me
As a resident of Wisconsin let me just say …
…
…
{sob} dear god it’s true. The whole damn state outside of Madison and the Milwaukee to Chicago corridor is filled with them.
me
Do we? I don’t hear that very often.
tkogrumpy
@Tom Hilton: This is the conundrum, isn’t it. Do you vote on principal or politics. Senator Feingold currently stands at the top of the senate heap IMHO. He very often votes with the minority, for the simple reason the the majority are bat guano crazy unprincipled hacks. I respect senator Feingold more than any other living senator, and would cut him a little slack on any vote.
Sheila
At the beginning of the Presidential primary season, I had hoped Senator Feingold (one of my Senators) would be running for President, and was disappointed when he dropped out. However, after being subjected to repeated declarations by him about what a great President McCain would make, I began to have my doubts about his judgment. Though I do not know Senator Feingold personally, we are friends with one of his closest associates, and when we asked him about Feingold’s continuing praise for McCain (and this was well into the general election), he said that Feingold truly believes McCain is a great guy. This is akin to believing Palin would make a great Vice-President. Perhaps that’s why Feingold loves McCain — not just because they are both “mavericks” but because they both have poor judgment in regard to smarmy dissemblers. At any rate, I think his refusal to support this bill, lackluster as it is, decidedly shows poor judgment.
Adam Hyland
@me:
Yup. The national press doesn’t pay much attention to our Congresscritters, but we have some crazies. Even worse are the ones who only just barely missed being congressmen. John Gard who only barely lost to Steve Kagan for the 8th congressional district is a complete loony.
Lev
Feingold’s biggest problem is that he thinks that financial reform is somehow about him, and his resolute principles. It’s just not, and he’s an arrogant ass to think so.
And I say this as a fan of the guy for so many reasons.
John Bird
Well, Feingold is true to the Democratic Party platform; unfortunately, that’s the best way to get on the wrong side of the Democratic Party nowadays. Really, the only problem with his “no” vote is that the party doesn’t have the will or confidence to follow him and force the bill we need.
Feingold probably shouldn’t vote no, it’s true. And that’s an indictment of our system to its core, because he’s right, but there’s not a vehicle for the correct solution anywhere in Washington – at least not anymore.
FlipYrWhig
@HRT:
I think that’s just right. He’s marginally less condescending than Greenwald (for example, he doesn’t say that anyone who supports the financial reform bill is a mindless cultist), but his views seem very similar. Probably 90% laudable, 5% WTF, and 5% get-over-yourself.
Tom Hilton
@tkogrumpy: I guess I don’t see it as a conundrum. To me, it’s a no-brainer: principles have value only to the extent that they are beneficial in practice. If a politician obstructs good but imperfect legislation as a matter of ‘principle’, then the ‘principle’ is worthless.
Adam Hyland
@Sheila:
I suspect he liked McCain for the same reason that many people did–personal relationships. I mean, how many times did Jon Stewart have McCain on the daily show? Does that somehow imply that Jon Steward wants a world in which Palin could be president? Add in the fact that apart from a silly fixation on earmarks, McCain was not completely crazy pre-2000. He ran against George Bush, helped build modern campaign finance reform and was a reasonable republican (for the most part). He was still a republican, so he wasn’t fully reasonable, but compared to his peers he wasn’t bad. Arguably he went slowly off the rails in the past decade. But how would you expect long time collaborators and friends to react to such a change? How much evidence would have to mount before you disowned someone you trusted and worked with for years?
I’m not trying to justify the average senator’s views, just trying to motivate them.
HRT
@Tom Hilton: In the end, that may sometimes be true. But I’ll agree with a few of the commenters here, that in hindsight he’s usually “right.”
I know there’s a big debate here whether it’s better to pass a shitty bill than to pass nothing at all, and I see both sides of the argument. But I’ll say that I’d rather see him holdout for what I consider the right reasons than watch some dink like Nelson or Lincoln sell their vote.
Midnight Marauder
@Tom Hilton:
@Lev:
Two very accurate sentiments, I believe. I get that the guy has his “principles,” but when those principles become an active impediment to actually passing legislation, then we have a fucking problem.
John Cole
@Tom Hilton: Bingo.
It is the same logic that made “I’m voting against the stimulus because it isn’t big enough” or “I’m voting against HCR because it is not good enough” such a pointless position after things have already gone to conference committee. The douchebags saying “He’s just standing on principle” or “He’s negotiating” just don’t get it, and never will.
tkogrumpy
@Tom Hilton: I understand what your saying, but take a look around at your country. Is this where you thought we would be now. If we can’t put meaningful controls on wall street and the big six now, it is never going to happen, and once the collapse comes there will be no dislodging Fascism.
Midnight Marauder
@HRT:
Even if those “right reasons” leave us stuck with the status quo that brought about the financial collapse in the first place?
Again, noble intentions, but atrocious application of those intentions.
Tom Hilton
@HRT: First of all, I think it’s tremendously counter-productive to describe any legislation that constitutes an improvement (however modest, however imperfect) as ‘shitty’. And I think any ‘debate’ over whether such legislation is worth passing flows entirely from that false and counter-productive characterization.
And as far as I’m concerned, a vote against a good (but imperfect) bill is a vote against, whatever the reasoning behind it. That said, I have more respect for Nelson’s position (which is in line with his conservative instincts and/or his donor’s interests) than for Feingold’s (which in practical terms, which are the only terms that matter, amounts to opposing the very things he claims to support).
Texas Dem
Feingold is a mindless dreamer, and an incredibly self-righteous prick. Social and political progress is never achieved without wading into the muck and getting your hands dirty. And, yes, that involves compromise. Obama has done more in his first two years that the last two presidents did in sixteen years. Given the current structure of our political system, it’s just not reasonable to expect anything more.
Zifnab
@John Cole: You have to play the legislative calculus game, though.
Senators will vote for a bill if they see a net benefit in it for themselves. That’s why you didn’t see any female Republicans voting against the Lily Ledbetter Act.
At a certain point, a given Senator has to weigh the merits of a billing passing versus a bill not passing. If a bill not passing – say, a defense spending bill – will cripple the Senator’s major avenue of fund raising or support, he will make very large consolations to see that the bill passes even in a weakened state. If a bill passing will hurt the Senator’s chances of reelection, it’s going to be very hard to bring him on board no matter what you cut.
So the question becomes this: Are there any holdout Senators right of Blanche Lincoln who have something to gain by FinReg passing? If so, then the Dems might be able to cajole a vote out of that Senator by threatening to scuttle the bill. Dems got Scott Brown on board, because Brown needs to appeal to the die-hard Dem blue bloods of Massechuetts. Same with the Ladies of Maine. It wasn’t worth it to him to go down as the vote that killed the bill. By contrast, David Vitter and Jeff Sessions have absolutely nothing to gain. :-p
Maybe Feingold is an idiot and he’s wasting space by holding out like he did. Or maybe the Democrats are idiots, because they refuse to staple tough FinReg to something the Republicans can’t afford to see fail – like defense spending.
I think the conservative Dems continue to tie the hands of the moderates and liberals. And I think that Feingold’s move might have looked dumb at the moment but simply highlights how the Dem caucus can’t bring themselves to play to win. In a smarter Senate, Russ’s obstinacy would have been just as much a sticking point to the GOoPers and Blue Dogs as the progressives.
Mnemosyne
@tkogrumpy:
Uh, the minority is the Republicans. You’re arguing that it’s the Democrats who are the real unprincipled hacks so it’s understandable that Feingold would side with David Vitter and Mitch McConnell?
Three-nineteen
“Obama has done more in his first two years that the last two presidents did in sixteen years.”
Yes, and he did it all with Feingold’s vote. Couldn’t have done most of it without him. I don’t agree with his position on FinReg, but he’s better than at least 90 senators (possibly 99) on almost everything else, so I’m pretty happy with his representation of my state – especially since he’s one of the few people in Congress still willing to fight for my civil rights.
By the way, here’s Wikipedia on the word bubbler:
Midnight Marauder
@Zifnab:
Of course, such a Senate does not currently exist, which means that Feingold is playing a game of legislative calculus against himself.
Chris G.
“could it be that the reason Russ Feingold is in trouble is that heâs an unpalatable mix of trimmer and righteous prig?”
Yes.
buckyblue
Bubblers in southEastern Wisconsin, along with stop and go lights. Weird, my kids talk this way, too. The two big radio stations in Milwaukee (Democratic?) pump out 24-7 conservative hate radio, first with local hate, then national hate with Rush and Sean and even Savage. Six years ago the Republicans ran the same type of guy, only then it was a multi-millionaire developer from Oconomowoc (yes, that’s the name) named Michaels. It was even in the summer, by the time November rolled around the RNC decided Michaels had no chance so cut off any national money. It wasn’t close. If you can watch the debates on youtube, they are hilarious, do so. Feingold can debate and think on his feet, these businessman stiffs the Repubs put up just can’t. You almost feel sorry for them.
El Tiburon
But that wont stop me from making an asinine and ridiculous statement.
So here I go anyhoo:
Never mind that Feingold is one of the few politicians who seriously seems to actually care about doing his job of serving the people, relatively speaking.
If anyone sounds like a ‘righteous prig’ it is you.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Three-nineteen:
You’re wasting your breath. The fetishists are in full throat and Feingold is now History’s Greatest Monster. I’m surprised to see even John Cole, who usually has more sense than this, playing the high school clique game.
It makes no difference what Feingold’s motivation is here. He was against the bill when it was a little better and is against it now that it’s a little worse, which only makes sense. They could have given him a little something he wanted in the bill or now give him a ride in Air Force One, and if he changes his mind you can bet the commenters here will change their tune faster than you can say Jack Robinson. They’re nothing if not predictable.
Lolis
Maybe Russ’s next ad will be on how he investigated Obama about his “czars” and even asked Supreme Court nominee Kagan about it. Russ has some really harebrained ideas. Obviously, I want him to win his election. But I don’t really respect the guy. He also doesn’t lift a finger to elevate his good ideas/positions on the national stage. He never strongly came out for the public option. He criticizes Obama at every opportunity.
I am not surprised to read he was lavishing the praise on McCain. Too bad Feingold can’t go back in time and vote against McCain-Feingold since according to posters here, watered-down legislation that does not completely fix a problem is not worth passing.
Allison W.
Here ‘s my issue and I see that others don’t get it.
When Obama so much as turns his head to the right, the Left goes off and calls him a secret republican. When a Dem from a red state panders to he right – he’s a DINO and hates the Left, hates America, etc, etc. So when a certified Liberal does it, its no big deal, oh he’s in a tough re-election, oh he’s been on the right side of issues, etc, etc, etc. Well how the hell is that fair? If you are going to condemn Obama and other Dems for their work with the right or the GOP, why doesn’t Feingold get the same treatment? How many times has the Left spit at the mere mention of the Tea Party? Remember those racist, sexist, morons that would Sarah Palin as president? that’s suddenly ok, because its Feingold, and its an election year?
And I’m not buying his “principled” stand on financial reform. His backing out made the bill weaker. he knows damn well that the votes weren’t there for his amendments and he knows damn well that if we don’t pass this one, there is no guarantee that we will have the opportunity again with the next Congress. Principle by butt.
There is a website that lists all of the promises that Obama has kept – 119 promises KEPT, 37 compromised and some others stalled. How many broken? 19 out of 500+ promises made, YET the Left gives him a drubbing every single day and Feingold? – He voted against the PATRIOT ACT so its cool that he doesn’t mind associating with the right.
Let this show that no politician Left – Center – Right is above doing or saying questionable things to get re-elected. NONE!
Allison W.
And one more thing. MOST of the Democrats have been on the right side of the issues not just Feingold. If you notice it is always the same ones over and over. Frustrating as hell, but Dems on the whole have been on the right side of the issues. Feingold ain’t no hero.
mikkel
If Democrats supported people like Feingold consistently after the 2000 election then all the “yes in theory but” arguments would be immaterial because the Democrats would hold majorities of Feingold-like pols. He has been consistent to a fault about his principles, and has long been a balanced budget guy…in order to support universal health care. From wikipedia about his FIRST race in 1992:
“During the primary campaign, Feingold unveiled an 82-point plan that aimed to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term.[15] The plan, which called for, among other things, a raise in taxes and cuts in the defense budget, was derided as “extremist” by Republicans and “too liberal” by his Democratic opponents. Feingold also announced his support for strict campaign finance reform and a national health care system and voiced his opposition to term limits and new tax cuts.”
Instead of feeling morally superior because you support passing shit that won’t solve the core problems of our country and still be branded “socialist” (thereby proving “socialism” is bad when things fall apart again) how about supporting a guy that has a consistent vision? Then when things go to hell there would be enough messaging and support to actually do things differently, instead of handing trillions to the people that caused the problems and calling it a day.
John Cole
WTF are you talking about? Has it occurred to you that you exhibit all the behaviors the evil “obots” have, except you do it for anyone and everyone who you’ve deemed a progressive hero.
Regardless, I’ve hardly deemed Feingold history’s greatest monster, I just think he is a complete moron if he thinks his “principled” vote against financial regulation in any way advances his principles. Keep charging windmills, Russ and Bruce, but don’t demand I sit there clapping your misadventures and get wood over your steadfast principles.
Citizen Alan
Why exactly should Feingold vote for a FinReg bill if he thinks (a) it will fail utterly to prevent future economic disasters like the one this bill is supposed to forestall and (b) that by signing onto this Democratic bill which will pass with Democratic support and be signed by a Democratic president, he thinks he will catch the blame in ten years when we have another meltdown that this bill failed to prevent?
mikkel
@John Cole:
The best criticism of Feingold is that AFAIK he’s never made an attempt to get lots of people to charge the windmills with him. At the end of the day you’re right his principles mean jack if they don’t operate within a larger context. Democrats are just as responsible for killing off the progressive narrative as anything, but the progressives have also never been willing to declare war against their own party like the Reaganites did. Being principled and timid is a bad combination.
Zeke
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
You’re right about one thing. It doesn’t matter what his motivations are. He’s still wrong. He should still change his vote.
Tom Hilton
@mikkel: two words that should have no place whatsoever in politics: “consistent vision”. The real world is inconsistent and contradictory, so no “consistent vision” can ever be adequate to the practical task of trying to change it for the better.
CalD
Hope you wore your asbestos underwear, Mistermix. You’ve gone and questioned the infallibility of a bona fide avitar of progressiver^er sanctimony. They won’t tolerate such apostasy very gladly I’m afraid.
Shawn in ShowMe
Better to catch the blame for attempting to fix the problem than just taking your magic pony and going home. “Taking a principled stand” that derails any semblance of financial reform only helps bankers and Republicans.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@John Cole:
Where’s all the detailed blogging on the ins and outs of FinReg here on Balloon Juice? On what basis do you think the final bill should pass? Do you have a basis, other than that Obama wants it?
Krugman: “The question now seems to be whether we’ll get a watered-down [financial regulation] bill or no bill at all. And I hate to say this, but the second option is starting to look preferable.”
I agree with him, as far as how the bill looked when he wrote that in March. At the risk of sounding dramatic, financial re-regulation is not just your typical political football, it’s something that has to be done right for the sake of our society’s survival. Looking at the current bill with my limited understanding it’s a borderline call, leaning toward support, but somebody with a solid argument could tip me the other way. So, are you for the bill, and on what basis? Compared to the health care bill there’s been very little blogging here about what’s in FinReg and whether it’s adequate, so I’d really like to know on what basis, other than Obama wants it, Feingold is being given the Kucinich treatment here.
Then there are the tags. The post is about Russ Feingold and only Russ Feingold. The tags are Democratic Stupidity — fine, you think he’s being stupid, I don’t agree but whatever — and Teabagger Stupidity. Really, John, Feingold a “Teabagger”? That doesn’t strike you as comically childish? And the “douchebags…just don’t get it”? Please do better than this.
John Cole
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): You are aware I had nothing to do with this post, aren’t you?
Brien Jackson
@HRT:
It depends what you mean by “shitty.” If you mean that it makes things worse than the status quo, then no, there’s no reason to vote on it. But if it improves on the status quo, albeit not as much as you’d like, what are you gaining by opposing it? In that case you’re just making things worse than they could be, aren’t you?
Brien Jackson
@John Cole:
To be fair, I’ll give the firebaggers some credit on HCR. I didn’t agree with it, but they at least had a logical belief that the bill was worth voting against because the mandate, excise tax, etc. were worse, ITO, than the status quo. There’s no similar logic to Feingold’s opposition to the finreg bill.
Brien Jackson
What makes Feingold’s opposition even more infuriating is that a lot of the stuff he wants actually got votes in the Senate…and lost. So he can’t even reasonably claim that this stuff has support and the White House is torpedoing it.
CalD
RE: Fin Reg
I gotta tell you, it didn’t strike me as all that terrible.
Just Some Fuckhead
There’s a pretty easy solution here. Just pass whatever Republicans want with a few Democratic votes. Then Obama gets his “wins” and we don’t have to have another lefty bashing contest.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@John Cole:
Who are the “douchebags” who just don’t get it, then? Do you agree or disagree with calling Feingold a “teabagger”?
Lettuce
Not that I’ve ever voted against him, except his first primary, but…
What did everybody expect?
He won his first primary because two Democrats from Milwaukee (Moody and Flynn) were running, if ONE of them had run he wouldn’t be in this seat.
And if Moody had won, which was considered the better bet, we’d have a reliably liberal vote… And an economist.
Instead, we have Russ “Elvis” Feingold.
Hoo-ray!
Mnemosyne
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Funny how people get pissed off when a supposedly progressive Democrat like Feingold teams up with Republicans to prevent a bill from being voted on at all.
Here’s a thought: if Feingold had voted in favor of cloture and voted against the bill, no one would be pissed at him, and he could still be a pure progressive hero. But since he decided to side with the Republicans and demand a supermajority for the bill, people are pissed.
I can’t believe you’re defending Feingold for blocking cloture. What do you have against majority rule? Why do you think all bills in the Senate should require 60 votes to be allowed to get to the floor at all? Because that’s what you’re defending here: requiring a supermajority to get anything done in the Senate.
Brien Jackson
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
I can see your argument, I just don’t get the logic. If you don’t think the bill makes things worse, what’s the rationale for voting against it at this point? How are you accomplishing anything, or making things better, by voting in favor of the status quo?
And while we’re using Krugman as an authority, I’ll note that Krugman has written that the particular item Feingold is butthurt over (not breaking up big banks) doesn’t really make much of a difference.
Nick
@Citizen Alan: He shouldn’t, but she shouldn’t filibuster it. Right? Isn’t that what we said about Nelson and Lincoln?
Nick
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
you are aware that the bill ended up being a lot stronger than Krugman thought it would be back when he wrote that, and Krugman admitted that, aren’t you?
Uloborus
@Citizen Alan:
Because, like HCR, a law is not binary. You do not go straight from ‘will completely fix the problem’ to ‘there’s no point in passing it’. There’s a huge middle ground of ‘will improve things’ that makes it fundamentally worth passing. I’m seein’ some nice things I would want implemented in this bill. So, because he’s not getting one particular detail he likes, he’s trying to scuttle everything. That does make some people mad, yes.
Al
Like Atrios once said, Feingold is always there for you except when you really need him. We bailed out his sorry ass in 1998 — “Senator from Dane County (Madison)”, his WATB opponent said when we wracked up 90%+ majorities in these wards in an election he won by a fraction of a point. Not a word against Clinton until after the election, when he was going to be the only Dem in the Senate to vote to forward impeachment at a critical juncture. No sense of proportion whatsoever at that key point, nothing but grandstanding to burnish his maverick credentials.
It drives me wild hearing him narrate his commercials on local radio, what fiscal conservatives we are here in Wisconsin, what a champ he is keeping spending down in Washington, how he stands up to both parties. Arghhhhh!
Brien Jackson
@Uloborus:
The CFPA alone makes it worth passing, IMO.
Lettuce
For the record:
My son has written to both Senators (Kohl and Feingold).
One of them writes back and offers advise, and it ain’t good ole’ Russ.
It’s not that he’s from Madison, that’s a nice place… It’s that he doesn’t have a clue what a liberal is and believes. That’s really astounding.
And contrary to my fellow Wisconsinites, this really IS a liberal state, you can argue that it isn’t, but it is.
Corner Stone
There is simply no discernible point at which some people will declare “enough”.
If there are 55+ Senators willing to vote Yes on just about any fucking bill some people here would be excoriating the couple holdouts, no matter the topic.
I’d like for once to see what their drop dead line is. Because I honestly believe they don’t have one. About anything.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Nick:
You are aware that I indicated that the quote was from March and that I agreed with it insofar as things stood in March? And that I said I currently lean toward supporting the bill? Or do you always not read things through in context?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Brien Jackson:
Wow. Where does one even begin to address an irrational point like this? I’ll let Krugman try to explain:
“There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing; this is very much the case for health care. But financial reform is different. An imperfect health care bill can be revised in the light of experience, and if Democrats pass the current plan there will be steady pressure to make it better. A weak financial reform, by contrast, wouldnât be tested until the next big crisis. All it would do is create a false sense of security and a fig leaf for politicians opposed to any serious action â then fail in the clinch.”
As I indicated, there have been improvements since this was written so the calculus has changed.
Brien Jackson
@Corner Stone:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but if there were 55 Senators lined up for a vote, and 5 Democrats voted against it while voting for cloture, I wouldn’t really care at the end of the day. Same thing here, I could ultimately care less if Feingold votes against the FinReg bill (even if I don’t think it makes sense), it’s joining a conservative filibuster to block it from a vote that’s outrageous.
Brien Jackson
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
I like Krugman and all, but again, when the choice is between changes that won’t be tested until the next crisis, and a status quo that’s already produced a terrible crisis, what’s the argument for siding with the latter.
Also, you didn’t address the point that Krugman thinks Feingold’s particular concerns aren’t important.
Brien Jackson
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Also, I think the word “much” is doing a lot of lifting in that Krugman quote. Maybe it’s not much better than the status quo, but if it’s even somewhat better, there’s no argument for voting for the status quo, IMO.
4jkb4ia
No insight into the attitudes of Wisconsin voters, but no contradiction. If you oppose the bill because it doesn’t eliminate TBTF that is fiscally conservative because the government won’t have to pay to prop up the TBTF institution.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Brien Jackson:
Oy. Here’s the link to the entire piece so I don’t have to explain it all to you bit by painful bit.
There’s no need to, I’ve already said more than once that I marginally support the bill (though my mind could be changed) after the improvements.
Brien Jackson
@4jkb4ia:
Except there’s really no such thing as “too big to fail” in banking. A run of a lot of small to medium sized failures can cause just as many problems as one or two big banks failing. The correlation of size to systemic risk is just totally false. Hell, Lehman wasn’t even that big, and its failure nearly collapsed the entire global financial industry.
Brien Jackson
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Ok, fair enough.
As for the Krugman article, it seems to me that his argument was mostly based on the idea that a “watered-down bill” wouldn’t include the CFPA, and that Democrats/progressives should draw a line over that. But the bill does include the CFPA, and most progressives, including Krugman I’m pretty sure, are of the mind that the Senate mostly improved on the House’s bill. So I’m just really not sure that that column got enough right in terms of predictions to have much usefulness now.
Sly
Trying to pigeonhole Feingold into a category of “national liberal,” or national anything, is futile. He’s no more a Blue Dog, or what passes as the conception of a Blue Dog, than he is a progressive or “Glenn Greenwald liberal”. He doesn’t fit into these categories because they don’t exist. The United States does not have anything that resembles a national politics.
He’s a Wisconsin Democrat, and does what he needs to do to get elected as a Wisconsin Democrat. If that means voting with the Republicans 20% of the time, so be it. Progressive bloggers only give him street cred because of his AUMF and Patriot Act votes, and conveniently ignore everything else.
Sentient Puddle
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): In this case, Krugman is basically wrong. Here’s where he’s hanging his argument up on:
If that’s the standard by which to judge a FinReg reform bill, then nothing will be sufficient. Wall Street will somewhere and somehow find innovative new ways to fuck up the economy. That’s the nature of financial innovation. The best you can do is to plug whatever holes you can now and realize that somewhere on down the line, you’ll find new vulnerabilities to the system that nobody would have ever imagined.
In any case, I’m not sure Krugman has really spoken like this about the FinReg bill recently anyway, so I think you might be trying to attribute some belief to him that’s just plain wrong.
NR
@Adam Hyland: Welcome to today’s Democratic party, where the only unforgivable sin is opposing Obama from the left.
NR
@Brien Jackson:
And yet when Democratic Senators join a conservative filibuster to kill the public option, we need to roll over and give them whatever they want. Funny how these things work.
Sentient Puddle
Oh yeah, and on Feingold, (a) I don’t seriously buy these numbers saying that he’s in trouble, because they just don’t grok; and (b) his only real sin in recent memory is opposing the FinReg bill. It’s pretty stupid opposition sure, but beyond that, he’s a damn good Democrat.
Sly
@Sentient Puddle:
The main problem with Krugman’s thesis is that an imperfect bill that deals with financial regulation can’t be improved. This goes against the historical record, since the Banking Act of 1933 (what is commonly referred to as Glass-Steagall, but there’s more than one piece of legislation with that name) only established a bare-bones regulatory structure. The FDIC, for instance, was set up as a temporary agency with more limited oversight powers than what it has today.
However, it did take shit getting worse in terms of bank runs and deflation to make improving the regulatory structure beyond what was established in 1933 politically viable, and I would agree that this is basically where we are.
Gus
@me: Dude, I can say that ’cause I live in Minnesota. As in, the state that keeps sending Michele Bachmann to Congress. I happen to love Wisconsin, land of the New Glarus brewery, Madison, and Alpine Valley.
Brien Jackson
@NR:
Yeah, that’s totally the same thing. Except:
1. I never praised anyone for that, and so far as I know no commenters here or in general did, just argued that Obama didn’t have magical bully pulpit powers to make him do whatever he wants because he said so.
2. On that note, you don’t see me arguing that Obama could call Feingold, say some mean things to him, and magically get him to do what the White House wants him to either, do you?
So yes, other than talking about two completely different things that don’t contradict each other at all, you’ve got a great job. You’re distinguishing skills are remarkable.
Corner Stone
@NR:
There is no left. There are only people who haven’t properly negotiated yet.
liberal
@Sentient Puddle:
Baloney. There are lots of ways to make the system far less vulnerable. It’s not like the Constitution forbids us from restricting financial “innovation”.
Sly
@NR:
Let’s be realistic: the only sin in the modern Democratic party was voting in favor of the AUMF.
Joe Lieberman, of all fucking people, has a more liberal voting record than Russ Feingold, and Lieberman is one of the most reliable votes on lots of issues that progressives claim are dear to their hearts (labor, choice, gun control, etc). But the war is more important, so none of that stuff counts.
Now I have to go take a goddamn shower for defending Joe Lieberman.
Gus
@Sly: I don’t know if voting for the AUMF was the only sin, but it was definitely the original sin.
Sentient Puddle
@liberal:
That has basically nothing to do with what I said.
What I said was, there are inevitably vulnerabilities that nobody knows about, and there’s nothing you can do about them because that would involve knowing something about them.
angler
Russ Feingold votes with the president 95% of the time, what are you purists?
Something is in the water this week that makes Feingold the
fifth columnist du jour here and at like-minded sites. In that spirit: firebaggers! go git em! git git!
Brien Jackson
@angler:
Yeah, Feingold filibustering FinReg.
Mike D.
Fuck you, Wengler, we’ve elected him three times and will do so a fourth despite all this national Democratic Party hack bitching, so who the fuck are you to tell us we don’t deserve him. We fucking gave him to you: he’s one of us! What the fuck are you talking about we don’t deserve him? Where the fuck do you get off?
Mike D.
@Allison W.:
Who says it is what you call “the Left” – those who you say give Obama a hard time for working across the aisle or being realistic about HCR – that is defending Feingold now? I get the feeling it is mostly literal Wisconsinites who know what a gem they have produced and want to keep sending him back (including by supporting a principled stand that will play well back here in a tough election year) what are stepping up to get their guy’s back, and who in fact agree with you about much of Obama’s accomplishments and methods. We’re actually pretty reasonable here, even though we have our share of crazies like anyplace else.
But even though that is the case, even if I had a different position on Obama’s pragmatism, it is be an entirely different thing for the president, who is leader of a branch of government and the entire party, to use no play from his playbook other than the bipartisan wilt (not saying that’s the case) on every issue, than it is for one Senator to buck the party on occasion (especially given that if that is the president’s approach, any legislators with any principles at all will be getting constantly hung out on them, and can be counted on to break away at some point or other – hopefully at moments when it is useful politically, such as this) or commit the intolerable infraction of repriinting some good things that some political undesirables have said anout him in the past.
Mum
Russ Feingold isn’t in danger of being defeated. The contest in Wisconsin isn’t even on Nate Silver’s radar, and I trust his assessments of probable election outcomes much more than I trust the ravings of the press, which are primarily perpetrated in order to perpetuate their own existence and infotain us, while being fed by their corporate overlords.
Mum
@Lev:
Lincoln Chafee was one of the major losses. I’m surprised he lasted as long as he did, and last I heard now he’s running for governor of Rhode Island as an Independent.
sparky
speaking as a designated Obama-hater, this post is DNC flapdoodle. the biggest trimmer in the US is Obama, so how about saving your fake outrage for people who pander to the oligarchy explicitly?
Ronbo
Love, love, love Feingold.
I understand the desire to “just pass legislation”;however, all legislation is NOT equal. Remember the inappropriately named “blue sky” legislation that increased allowable pollution? Do you love national health care legislation that merely forced every American to purchase over-priced insurance from for-profit corporations (written to be enacted so very far out into the future that it has little chance of EVER comming into being?
To those who just want legislation, would you be satisified to pass legislation called “The Massive Financial Regulation Safe Lock-Box Act” that consisted of one word…”Careful”? Don’t be stupid, we need GOOD legislation. I trust Feingold to bring a measure of honesty that no other Senator is capable of ensuring.
This Congress (and mentality) reminds me of the scene in Christmas Vacation where the boss yells “Get me someone on the phone. Anyone. And get me someone on the phone while I’m waiting.” Absurdist black comedy is not good government.
CalD
My take on old Russ is that his problem is basically this:
He’s a Democrat from a state with more cows than people (last I knew), where the richest source of Democratic voters it a vestigial pocket of old line, rust-belt industrial era progressivism. It’s the classic Blue-Dog’s dilemma except with more of the his potential universe of voters shifted toward the pole than usual.
Luckily for him, midwestern exurbanite centrists tend to be pragmatic, results-oriented people, more interested in actions than in words, while progressiver^ers are a lot happier with high-minded rhetoric than any achievable action — i.e., anything actually achievable in a representative democracy wherein a lot of people disagree with them about a lot of things. For them, glorious defeat while “speaking truth to power” is always preferable to actually winning a round or two now and then. The latter would require relinquishing their comfortable victim mentality and moving toward vested membership in a society they fear and despise, and we couldn’t have that.
So Russ is able to thread the needle and keep both groups happy (or happily unhappy in the one case) enough to keep his job by voting like Ben Nelson, while talking the talk like Denny Kucinich and being a darling of the Firebagger crowd. Good for him, I guess.
Sentient Puddle
@Ronbo: OK, but the current legislation actually is pretty solid. There are many ways it could be substantially improved, but it will do a number of things that make us substantially better off than the status quo. And there is no “bad legislation is worse than no legislation” to this.
Feingold stated that he’s opposing the bill because it won’t prevent all future crises. As I stated above, that’s absurdly naive. And so in this case, his principled stand leaves him opposing a bill that will make things better than they currently are.
Brien Jackson
@Ronbo:
That would make sense…if Feingold were arguing that the bill made things worse. He’s not, so you don’t really have much of a point.
4jkb4ia
For the record because I got curious about this:
The nice things said about Feingold by FreedomWorks and Club For Growth are not in the ad, but in the press release accompanying thereto. The ad mentions “standing up to Wall Street and the banks”. So there is even less of a contradiction than before.
Re Brien Jackson’s comment, today I watched the first panel of the hearing I missed paying attention to because of Kagan. One panelist was very firm that if you had had any derivatives regulation you would have had no crisis or at least a smaller one. But everyone agreed that even if you let Lehman go, AIG was connected to Lehman through the CDSs that it had written and if AIG went, the whole system went. So AIG was the TBTF entity here.