The House Passed Financial Reform; Now What?

Byrd has absolutely nothing to do with it:
.
“The Democrats’ majority is not frail because it lacks numbers, which it has in abundance. It is frail because the Democratic caucus chooses to be pathetically weak by embracing self-imposed helplessness. It has allowed itself to be completely bent to the will of a minority party. There is nothing legally, constitutionally or physically stopping 50 Democrats plus Vice President Joe Biden from restricting or just eliminating the filibuster this afternoon. Yet Democrats have chosen to forfeit completely their Constitutional right as the majority party in Congress to craft legislation by giving that power to a handful of Republican Senators.

“The Democratic majority is frail. But that’s not because its huge Senate majority slipped from 59 to 58. It is frail because it lacks the spirit, will and courage of its convictions.”

Jon Walker

And an absolutely damning narrative from Feingold:

“Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street’s fingerprints all over it.

“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.” Link

I know, I know, he’s not one of the ladies from Maine, the shirtless poof, or Blanchey-poo, so he doesn’t count, right.

I’ll say it again, Feingold-Grayson or Grayson-Feingold 2012.

Oregon JC:
.
Walker is mistaken.
.
They don’t lack the courage of their convictions.
.
Their convictions are that only bipartisan legislation is legitimate, and that ideological belief of theirs is quite profound.

Published on Tuesday, June 29, 2010
.
Kerry on Climate Bill: ‘We’re Prepared to Compromise Further’
.
Democrats, Obama Willing to Scale Back Energy and Climate Change Bill
.
by Darren Samuelsohn
.
Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman told reporters after the 90-minute West Wing meeting that Obama held firm in his calls for a price on greenhouse gases. But they said the president acknowledged that he could agree to a more limited climate and energy bill than any the senators had previously drafted.

“We believe we have compromised significantly, and we’re prepared to compromise further,” Kerry said.

Look, it’s very simple:
.
If a defining principle of yours is that all good policy must encompass some kind of rejection of liberalism, and some kind of acceptance of conservatism, must be opposed yet ultimately tolerated by the activist-supported wing of your party, and must contain significant concessions to the establishment right whilst simultaneously stoking the visceral hatred of the popular right, then the political behavior of the New Democrats are as close to pure idealism in as you could reasonably expect.
.
We have to get over the misapprehension that there is a Democratic majority in Congress. There just isn’t.
.
There are two Democratic Parties: one well-organized, well-think tank networked, well-media connected, and well-funded –the New Democrat Coalition– and the other not.
.
That latter Democratic Party is a disorganized herd of local machine politicians, creaking somnambulists, perpetual loudmouths, statist profiteers and the occasional left-sympathizing idealist who is fully content with symbolic gestures.
.
The New Democrats have ideas…lots of ideas. And principles, and policy, and solutions…and convictions.
.
And by running Barack Obama against the DLC’s Hillary Clinton for President, they’ve shown they definitely have the courage of their convictions.
.
It’s only we liberals who look at the members of this mini-party that runs the Democratic party –like Senate New Democrate Coalition representative John Kerry and DLC hard-liner Joe Lieberman– and see unprincipled men acting purely out of venal desires and cowardice, as if they were somehow too afraid or corrupt to publicly embrace liberalism.
.
It’s the opposite.
.
They don’t just say they reject liberalism, they have the courage of their convictions to play the kind of games of chicken with liberal caucuses we saw during the health care debate –and win!
.
Who ultimately folded and voted for a drastic, generationally significant policy they knew wasn’t in the best interests of America? Joe Lieberman or Dennis Kucinich?
.
Who are the ones who really lack the courage of their convictions…besides maybe Russ Feingold?
.
Them or us?
.
Maybe we ought to do a little less preening about how strong and principled we are, and how those Vichy Dems, those “conservaDems” lack spirit. Maybe we ought not to talk so much about how the frail majority has been bent to the will of the minority party –unless we’re talking about that all-powerful minority party within the Democrati Party.
.
Walker is right, of course, when he says

There is nothing legally, constitutionally or physically stopping 50 Democrats plus Vice President Joe Biden from restricting or just eliminating the filibuster this afternoon.

, but he’s just dead wrong in his claim that what’s stopping them from taking small-d majority power and using it is a lack of principle.
.
It takes an awful lot of anti-majoritarian, anti-democracy, anti-popular will principle to continue to reach out to revanchist Republicans while the rest of your party looks on aghast and dismayed. It takes Herculean effort at bipartisanship to overcome a duly elected partisan majority. It takes a great deal of trouble and sweat to take turns playing villain for the base, and a lot of finesse and nuance to come up with the right words to play the hero for us.
.
To do that, it takes something that Walker (and many liberal Democrats) seem to refuse to recognize when they see it, because, it seems, we’d prefer to continue to think of ourselves as brave and principled, and them as weak and corrupt.
.
It takes the power of conviction well-harnessed to political will to do what the New Democrats have done to the Democratic Party, which was to walk right up and take it away from us.

Feingold voted for HCR too, didn’t he? Did a single progressive in either house stand by his/her convictions/stated promises?
.
You refer to “this mini-party that runs the Democratic party.” Is it really mini? Walker is only wrong if all 58 remaining dems are centrists. If they’re not, at least some of them aren’t voting according to conviction. You’ve surely read enough Walker to know that he’s not ascribing liberalism to Blanche Lincoln et al.

Now what?
.
Now the chickensh*t Dems kill financial reform because they’re not getting enough money stuffed down their fat goddamn gobs on an hourly basis by reform proponents.

Feingold-Grayson what a great fantasy.

Just managed to read your comment more carefully. Naturally, there’s much we agree on here. Walker should at the very least be more precise–is he referring to party leaders, blue dogs, liberals, AOTA?
.
But please tell me this was just a late-night slip:
.
“We have to get over the misapprehension that there is a Democratic majority in Congress. There just isn’t.”
.
Yes, there is. A liberal majority, hardly, but the democratic party is what it is. It’s hard enough telling folks that Obama or Reid aren’t liberals–are you actually suggesting that it’s a good idea to deny they’re democrats?
.
Earlier you say “that ideological belief of theirs is quite profound.” Now, this is kind of interesting to me. Not that you were clear if you agreed, but you mentioned that Rosen says Chomsky’s media analysis is too ideological. To me it’s one and the same beast we’re dealing with here. Whatever “convictions” young intrepid journalists or politicians might possess, the fact of the matter is they’re not going to get anywhere in MSM or elections (generally) unless they conform to the ideological pressures of their patron class. The corporate ownership of MSM is mirrored by our wholly corrupt two-party system. The notion that these parties are going to clean up such corruption is LOL-until-you-pass-gas funny (i.e. the reason why liberals will never gain a majority within the democratic party let alone congress).
.
So, help me out here, why is it ideology on the part of our beloved centrists but not on the part of journalists? How are they different, really? You might convince me–I’ve not thought this out entirely.
.
“The New Democrats have ideas…lots of ideas. And principles, and policy, and solutions…and convictions.”
.
So do tele-evangelists Stuart–they too might even believe they’re conduits to the Godsmack, but the thing these predatory whores have in common is they’ll say anything to acquire/maintain their privileged positions.

This is supposed to be 1.3, addressed to you SZ.

Feingold has to get re-elected first, and for a man who’s only a few points up in the polls, I’m not convinced he’ll make it.

Feingold Opposition :

1. No “firewall”, meaning all of the lax regulations which were passed by the Democrats in 2006, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Republicans are equally as guilty because George W Bush signed it into law. The vote was 92 to 8 in favor of repeal. Lots of bipartisan support to go around, and to lay blame on the current economic crisis we are facing.
.
2. Nothing to address the “too big to fail”.
.
In 2009, McCain and Cantwell jointly placed a bill before the Democratic controlled Congress to re-enact Glass Steagall, but this was voted down. Why is that?
.
Why, because people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd want lax regulations to allow more predatory lending practices to continue. Their lobbyist have fought hard to repeal all of the strict financial rules which had been in place such as home loan mortgages requiring proof of a job or income and credit worthiness. Now you only need to walk in a bank and prove you are breathing. The Government will “bail” you out if your mortgage becomes unpayable, or you simply decide not to pay on your mortgage because you bought a home at the high end of the market and now the bottom has fallen out.
.
Despite people like stuartzechman’s claim this is some sort of “New Democrat” conspiracy, which it isn’t, it is simply lobbyists who are protecting their selfish interests over what would be good financial reform. It is corruption in Washington as usual, and Congressional Leaders putting millions of dollars into their respective campaign war chests.
.
Anyone stupid enough to believe that the Democrat’s concern is for finacial regulations to protect the little people or as that Norwegian President of BP said the small people are sadly mistaken.
.
The 92 to 8 vote to get rid of Glass-Steagall was the cause of the financial mess we are in. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not a “New Democrat” or Republican problem. It is however a problem that our elected officials do not have our interests at heart, but do have and continue their love affair with lobbyists.

“Who ultimately folded and voted for a drastic, generationally significant policy they knew wasn’t in the best interests of America? Joe Lieberman or Dennis Kucinich?”
.
Lieberman is a cad and a scoundrel, he’ll get no defense from me.
.
But I have issues with Dennis Kucinich, too. I often agree with him politically (UFOs excepted), but as a legislator he’s awful. Since 1997, he’s sponsored 97 bills, only 3 of which were enacted. And I don’t think “Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously” is a stunning victory for progressives.
.
Liberals need good liberal leaders first. Otherwise, liberals will continue to be treated by the Dems as the Reps treat the religious fundamentalists – give them enough lip service to get their votes, then ignore them until the next campaign.
.
The left needs a Tea Party of their own. Otherwise, its going to be death by a thousand compromises, while progressives cheer on the handful of token liberals who sit on the sidelines.

“but do have and continue their love affair with lobbyists”
.
I don’t get to say this often, but you’re right, Rusty.
.
“because people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd”
.
And you’re still a partisan hack. Your guy, Scott Brown did his part, too.
.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/28/scott-brown-difficult/

The left needs a Tea Party of their own.
.
That is one of the best ideas I have heard yet on this blog.
.
Thank you.

Does Obama intend on granting a pardon to sexual predator Al Gore prior to trial or will Obama wait until after Gore is convicted? Also, what is the latest word on Gore leaving a piece of himself on the clothing of the female massage therapist who Gore summoned to his hotel room? Did Gore pull a “Clinton”?