Tweet
Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post:
When it comes to progressive priorities in the Senate, there’s one standard: 60 votes are needed. But for Ben Bernanke, there’s a second standard: 50 will be just fine, thank you. Democratic leaders in the Senate are asking colleagues who are reluctant to support Bernanke’s nomination for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman to nevertheless vote with them to end a filibuster and allow a vote on the actual nomination. The reluctant members would then be free to vote no to express their displeasure. Several Democrats have committed to just that and others are considering it.
The public health insurance option was stripped from health care reform because it didn’t have 60 votes. An expansion of Medicare took its place but it, too, was dropped for having fewer than 60. Both proposals had at least 50 votes. Dawn Johnsen, a nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, has the backing of progressive organizations, but a 60-vote threshold has held her up for a year.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters on Monday afternoon after a meeting with Bernanke that some opponents of the chairman had pledged to support him on the first vote, but not on the second. “I know that there are some Democrats who have stated publicly that they are not going to vote ultimately for his nomination as chairman of the Fed. Many, not all, but many of these Senate Democrats have said that they won’t stop us on procedural votes. So we may have their support on cloture but not on final passage,” he said.
HuffPost asked Durbin why they’d make that commitment for Bernanke but not for health care. “I don’t know. That’s a good question. They come up with different standards in terms of how they do things,” Durbin replied.
Public option, popular in swing districts: 60 votes. The loathed Ben Bernanke, popular with bankers: 50.
We get it.
14 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Excellent fact-based post. Progressives who trust Obama are not paying attention. We must continue to work to see that he fears losing our support. It’s the only way of keeping him honest. Go Jane.
The Dems seem hell bent on committing political suicide. At this point, all I can say is more power to ‘em. If they can finally succeed in putting themselves out of our misery, perhaps we can get a new party to replace them. One where those who are elected to serve actively work to achieve the goals of the party platform. Imagine that. I wonder what that would be like…
Called Harry Reid’s office this morning giving him 3 choices:
1. End the filibuster to get stuff done, or
2. Step down as majority leader since it’s clear he’s not up to the job, or
3. Nevada Democrats will force him out of the leadership…even if it means supporting his GOP rival in 2010 election.
Sure, it’s 50 votes this one time but right after this we will go back to 60. Sometimes they need to be a bit more flexible because there are bigger things at stake than improving health care.
Perhaps now I’ll have to consider looking at a few more HuffPost stories again on the assumption that at least one more author may have entered the wasteland.
Interesting that when he wants Bernanke–an unpopular choice with his constituency–he makes calls that everybody knows about, pushing whatever method necessary to get it done. When he says he wants something on the health care bill (can’t quite remember what THAT message was, if there actually was one) then we don’t hear a word about it until it’s too late. I suspect there was no public message whatsoever, that instead there was the message–”get it done” the way the senate wants it.
Second, can it be possible that the white house doesnt actually know when other elections take place, or what idiot the d’s are running ( Coakley)–or, third, when the SCOTUS plans on announcing the most devastating decision ever (probably) and then–no rational response, other than to give in? Hey, the democracy itself probably isn’t too important to this white house. They got some ‘splaining to do. I’m getting tired of pretending to protest, and will sit the next one out. Not that it matters–I live in Arizona–but still. It makes me feel better to vote, and I just can’t any more.
I live in Texas, so I know how you feel. But hang in there–sitting it out will make you complicit.
Maybe we should’ve gotten them a calendar for Christmas.
Only fifty votes are required for anything which benefits the oligarchs.
Sixty votes are required for anything which might help the great unwashed.
But keep quiet, and don’t complain, lest you help the Republicans.
Sheesh.
But what do I know? I’m f*cking retarded.
41 is the new 60
So even Durbin is confused(?) … or not.
When asked by HuffPo about the number of votes required, Durbin replied, “I don’t know. That’s a good question. They come up with different standards in terms of how they do things.”
“They” do?
I’d say they stick to a single “standard”, they “do” little or nothing for the people, yet manage to always accommodate certain “others”.
Mayhap this is the “foolish consistency” hobgoblin of little thought buckets?
Is Senator Durbin bothered, in any way, regarding his not “knowing” or does he imagine that to be a satisfactory state of affairs?
It’s a little hard to tell.
DW
Pretty much, that’s it. If it’s for the oligarchs or the corporations, then 50 votes are just fine. And don’t forget: this past summer, “they” were even talking about making it a 3/4 majority vote to pass anything that might, maybe benefit the peons. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 60 vote bar raised to 75 in the near future, when it’s something that benefits the so-called “middle class” (and yeah: let’s not forget that discussing teh poors is verboten because they deserve their fate).
Is Senator Durbin bothered, in any way, regarding his not “knowing” or does he imagine that to be a satisfactory state of affairs?
Yeah, he knows they’re a bunch of tools. But he also knows that Reid is gone in November, so he has to play nice with every Democratic senator until the caucus has selected a new majority leader (I guess it will be either him or Schumer).
I have, what is to me, a new wrinkle on an old idea about how to get the corporatist dems not to take progressives for granted as they currently do. Rahm’s supposedly not worried a bit about our support because of some poll which reputedly says dems who are progressive are 88% behind voting for Obama. So, as usual they are pandering “populism” to the center and right.
My idea involves a third party on the left. I’ve always opposed that because of the Nader/Bush debacle. What if the progressive third party fielded a candidate willing either to fight to the finish to teach a less OR was willing to drop out near the end of a general election after the dem candidate realized he/she’d go down without us. The progressive party candidate could then choose to throw his/her support behind the dem only in exchange for firm and binding policy concessions. Then if those concessions were not honored that Prez could count on the progressive 3rd party to fight to the end in the next election. Can this, or a variation on it work to give our minority party a say in dem policy sort of like in places that have many parties and have to form a coalition to govern? Too bad, at least in some ways, our system isn’t set up to allow that. Maybe in our system which seems to enshrine a 2 party system. the idea I suggest could give a part of the rights given a minority party in another country. It doesn’t give on-going power to address issues as they come up, but could it work here to get progressives some respect and some power?
I’ve said more than once that I’d rather have 41 progressives who were willing to filibuster bad bills or judges than 60 of the sort of Democrats we have in the Senate now. I don’t know if that’s achievable, but that’s real power for progressives, and 60 nominally Democratic Senators clearly isn’t.