The number 12 isn't significant. (0.00 / 0)

Give us the list.  Every time this is written about, name names.

---

by: mp @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 03:21:55 AM UTC

From the linked article: (4.00 / 1)

They were:  Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Tom Carper (Del.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson, (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.).

---

by: mp @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 03:22:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll answer both questions (0.00 / 0)

1. oops, I'm not a professional journalist, but my Senators voted for the amendment anyway.
2. maybe if we change the language and "cramdown" is replaced by something more benign, like "refinance" then it will be more acceptable to the business language police?

Not Ideas About The Thing, But The Thing Itself -- Wallace Stevens

---

by: catchlightning @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 04:27:29 AM UTC

Repeal Cramdown For Rich Folks (4.00 / 4)

Obviously the decent Democrats' next step should be to repeal cramdown for vacation homes and investment properties.

Those 12 Dems have not yet begun to sweat for their treachery.  This would raise the temperature a bit.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 04:29:27 AM UTC

Might as well stick in an expropriation amendment too (0.00 / 0)

If we're going to be called socialists, we might as well nationalise all foreclosed homes, right? And a bunch of second homes?

We'd solve the homelessness problem at one stroke, and the only cost would be David Broder dying of shock.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 12:48:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Question 2 (4.00 / 1)

I believe Chuck Schumer and/or Dick Durbin or one of the Udalls was in the Senate yesterday, arguing just this point. But the corrupt assholes who have been bought off by the banks don't hear it, they don't listen. The lobbyists tell them how to vote, and they do it.

I'm shocked that most of our senators from the poorest states were the ones most likely to vote against their constituents. And of course this once again shows how undemocratic the Senate really is. CA's senators represent more people than almost all of those no votes combined.

Hey Sirota -- you see any chance that we can dump Michael "Blue Dog" Bennet in a primary?

---

by: existenz @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:48:07 AM UTC

The answers aren't that hard to determine. (4.00 / 1)

This result was not about the merits of the legislation. It was not about what is fair and right. It was not about whether the law should help people retain their homes in a last-ditch effort.

This result was about nothing but money. Money the banks want to keep. Money that politicians want to keep receiving from banks. It's the same thing virtually every bill that makes its way through Congress is about these days.

Washington is officially bought and paid for, and they don't even try to hide that fact anymore.

---

by: Helzapoppin @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:48:25 AM UTC

It's not our government ,,, (0.00 / 0)

... it's their government.  I really wish that obama came out pounding his fist on the table and pushing this legislation and pointing out the hypocrisy at play here, but ... as far as I know ... he never did.  And if he did, it probably wasn't very forcefully.  Hell, he had a great opportunity to do that on national TV a couple of days back, but did he?  Maybe he did ... I don't know becoz I don't bother to watch his largely substance-less oratories.  But I do know for sure that it was taken out of the stimulus bill at his aides' behest.

But then again, he too is much more their preesident than ours.

Z

---

by: Z @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 13:39:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And now apparently obama is offering to campaign for the old dog but new blue dog specter ... (0.00 / 0)

... who voted against the damn bill.  yeah, sure he's really interested in change ain't he ...

Z

---

by: Z @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 13:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wrote my two Senators (0.00 / 0)

Before the vote asking them to support the amendment and after thanking them for doing so.

---

by: NMRon @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:21:08 AM UTC

vacations homes yes, regular homes no????? (0.00 / 0)

this is the most blatant example of showing the world and americans what the american govt stands for and who they really represent, no shame,

the bill, if passes, was so tightly writter, i heard, that it would have helped so few,

i thought if people foreclose and the banks cant sell they eat the loss, isnt less income better than zero?

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people

---

by: eomonroe00 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 14:23:46 PM UTC

Let's Write All the Democrats (0.00 / 0)

It's pretty easy, here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/...

I emailed McCaskill to thank her and I am asking my daughter at CU in Boulder to ask Bennet your Question No. 1.

---

by: ArthurKC @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 14:34:23 PM UTC

engage reps @ http://tweetcongress.org/ (0.00 / 0)

...

---

by: mariann @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 15:18:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice point (0.00 / 0)

Good questions, my friend.
I guess that good journalists are going to extinct...

bye
calcola rata mutuo

---

by: calcoloratamutuo1 @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 17:02:40 PM UTC

David, I have just one Question? (0.00 / 0)

Why do even good, progressive journalists and pundits continue to throw around the term "filibuster-proof?"

Eugene Robinson's column today tried to make the argument that the Republicans are irrelevant, and can't even be regarded as a strong opposition party.  It's like he was smoking LSD laced weed!  

I include the comment that I posted in response to his column at the WaPo site:  

Gene, why do you say that the Democrats now, or will have, a "filibuster-proof" majority, when everyone knows that there are numerous Democrats who frequently side with Republicans, and that getting all 60 Democratic Senators to vote the same way, particularly on progressive legislation, is well-nigh impossible?  

Simply having 60 members does not make a "filibuster proof" majority, unless you can count on all 60 voting the same way, at least a majority of the time.  Otherwise, what you have is the occasional opportunity to break a filibuster, an important distinction.  

To say that either party is "filibuster proof" implies that they have the votes to regularly impose their will by breaking (overriding) the opposition's filibuster; but where the filibuster is 95% likely to succeed, to make that implication is completely unfounded and wrong.  

Would you like a "bullet-proof" vest that allowed 95% of the bullets to pass through unobstructed?  How about "shatter-poof" auto glass that only fragmented properly 5% of the time, and the rest of the time, sliced the passengers to shreds?  If only NASA had "heat-proof" tiles on the Columbia, instead of merely "heat-resistant" tiles, those astronauts would be alive today.  

I usually like your work, and value your opinions.  However, in this instance, I believe the inaccuracy of the statement undermines the credibiility of your arguments.  The reality is that, just yesterday, I daresay as you were writing or preparing to write this column, Sen. Dick Durbin was sponsoring legislation which would have allowed Bankruptcy Judges to "cramdown" principle on mortgages.  That measure was defeated because there were not enough votes to invoke cloture, i.e., IT WAS FILIBUSTERED, SUCCESSFULLY!  Senate Republicans are far from irrelevant, and are in fact doing an excellent, almost unprecedentedly good job, of being the opposition party.  With only 40 votes, they routinely block progressive legislation, favored by the majority of Democrats, by keeping their entire caucus intact, and picking up anywhere from 4 to 12 Democratic votes.  The facts belie your argument, and you would do well to reconsider your statements, and the implication of what "filibuster-proof" really means.  

 

What do you think?  Particularly now that Souter is going to retire, and all the Republicans have to do to filibuster an Obama Supreme Court nominee is to pick up one (1) democrat or independent vote (yes, I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman), just how "filibuster proof" do you think the Democratic majority will prove to be?  

---

by: Jbearlaw @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:05:05 PM UTC