HELL yes. (4.00 / 6)

This is why it's good to have socialists in the Senate. We need more ornery lefties like Sanders.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

---

by: Liberaltarian @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 23:56:34 PM UTC

Yes! (4.00 / 1)

I just wrote (emailed) my Senators (both Dems, neither on Dodd's committee) tonight to not support reappointing Bernanke.

The irony here is that this will gain support from BOTH ENDS of the political spectrum here on Main St.  I'm hoping against hope that some Dem Senators get on board too as I fully expect some Repub Senators to go along with this (especially if the WH supports Ben).

I regard maneuvers like this as especially critical to get Obama to change course on the Wall St bailout policy.  Continuing to bailout the people that caused the economic crash while wiping out the middle class is going to wipe out the Democratic party.

---

by: glenjo @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:36:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How Long Do You Think It Will Take Reid? (4.00 / 2)

How long will it take Reid to move to cloture on the Bernanke nomination? Remember on retroactive immunity for the Telecoms? How much good did a Democratic threat to filibuster THAT do?

It's only RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN holds that get honored.

If Lieberman or Ben Nelson gets upset? HOLD THE PRESSES! God forbid if Jim DeMint or John Cornyn doesn't like something!

Progressives only irritate the Lords of the Senate if they try to get some progressive policy enacted or block some right-wing power grab.

There will be 60-75 votes for immediate cloture to get Bernanke back protecting the interests of Wall Street. They'll have it done by Christmas.

But, "the public option is off the table." Because we can't have any of that nasty "partisanship"!

---

by: Cugel @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 23:57:28 PM UTC

Imaginery Short Exchange Between Sheldon Whitehouse and Bernanke! (0.00 / 0)

Sen. Whitehouse: Before voting to confirm you, I want to hear that you're 'willing to take their eyes off an exclusive gaze on the welfare of Wall Street and start giving a red hot damn about the American public.'"

Bernanke: "That's not my job Senator. My job is to make sure that investors are happy. Period. I don't give a damn about jobs and never will."

Sen. Whitehouse: "O.K. I can respect that kind of honesty. I'll vote for you anyway. I just wanted to get that statement on the record."

Bernanke: [Dripping with sarcasm] "Thank you Senator."  

---

by: Cugel @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:05:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't gloat just yet .... (0.00 / 0)

There will be 60-75 votes for immediate cloture to get Bernanke back protecting the interests of Wall Street.

Now that the nomination will have to clear 60 votes .. what Republican(s) will vote to help Obama?  While it might happen ... I wouldn't bet on any guarantees

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:08:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

a hold just means you threaten to waste a lot of time (4.00 / 1)

Someone like Bernanke is important enough -- and his detractors will surely admit he is important -- to go through the actual Senate debate.

I hope though his support collapses. I'd bet it's rather fragile and it's easy to imagine Senators jumping off the ship. On the other hand, it's even easier seeing them stay on the ship, being bought and paid for.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:09:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Under the Bus! (4.00 / 2)

WH will have to throw someone under the bus for the economy.  Might as well start with Ben.  Next letters to Senators have to make sure we don't get that fucker Summers in Ben's place.  He's worse than Ben.

I'd support throwing Ben, Larry and Timmy under the bus.  These guys have done more to wreck America than Osama Bin Laden ever did.

---

by: glenjo @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:43:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have been wondering ... (0.00 / 0)

has anyone ever asked Stiglitz .. on the record .. if he'd ever take Ben's job .. if it was open?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:12:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A filibuster threat doesn't matter (4.00 / 1)

If you don't have the votes to actually do it.  Strom Thurmond's famous filibuster was done when there were enough votes for cloture (as enough Southern Senators had agreed to not filibuster, ironically in a deal intended to prevent the filibuster from being done away with), but they just let him have his last-ditch attempt to spark a populist uprising and voted for the bill when he ran out of breath.

Progressives lack leverage right now.  The numbers just aren't there.  The best idea is to go back to Howard Dean's incrementalist 50-state strategy and use it to put progressives into lower offices so that they make up the bench that the Democratic Party must go to in recruiting candidates as Senate seats become open.  (One problem I foresee is too many strong progressives setting up shop in safe districts and staying in the House to build the seniority to chair committees rather than moving on to campaign for Senate or governor.)

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:43:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow, best news I've heard all day (4.00 / 4)

Actually, it's the only not-shitty news I've heard.

As long as we have an undemocratic body in which single senators have inordinate power, might as well use it for democratic means.

---

by: david mizner @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:05:55 AM UTC

Let it be noted (4.00 / 1)

that it was NOT a D party Senator who invoked this hold.  Those who think they can infiltrate and take over the D party should consider just what happened when some Tea Partiers got their own, non-corporate-endorsed agenda: big donor corporations, for some shocking reason, stopped providing organizational support to the breakaways.

---

by: marxmarv @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:31:31 AM UTC

If Nothing Else (4.00 / 1)

The cloture vote will give us a clearer indication for the shill/not-douchebag divide among the Democratic caucus.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/

---

by: joelfrominwood @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:32:19 AM UTC

Good for him... BUT (4.00 / 2)

We can't forget that these arcane procedural hurdles need to be abolished.  They are undemocratic, which is reason enough to get rid of them.  Beyond that, while they may help progressives prevent the worst conservative overreach, they make progressive governance completely impossible.

The filibuster, holds, etc. must be reformed, even if they work for us some percent of the time.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:36:03 AM UTC

isn't it up to Reid? (0.00 / 0)

to honor the hold or not? i do seem to remember Dodd trying to do this and Reid just blew him off.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:47:28 AM UTC

Yes .... (0.00 / 0)

but one hopes .. seeing that Reid is in a bad way re: re-election .. that he honors Sanders hold

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:14:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Possible (0.00 / 0)

Reid's state is suffering extra high unemployment and home foreclosures. Ben Bernanake and the Wall St banksters have to be polling at about a dead heat with Jack the Ripper right now.

This could more Reid's numbers up.

---

by: glenjo @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 03:57:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It NEVER Matters What Bankers "Poll"! (4.00 / 2)

All that has to happen is for Wall Street to threaten a tantrum: "the market" "will tank if you threaten to block Bernanke!"

Doing that will be a "sign that Democrats aren't serious about addressing the ballooning budget deficit!" Gasp!

All the SERIOUS beltway and media insiders have already decided that 2010 is the year we ram "entitlement reform" down people's throats in the name of "balancing the budget."

That's the Democrats' job in the modern political system.

Step 1: Reagan Republicans get into power and loot the treasury. Nobody cares. Deficits balloon.

Step 2: Market de-regulation leads to economic collapse. Republicans become wildly unpopular as unemployment soars.

Step 3: Democrat is elected.

Step 4: Media suddenly decides they are "shocked! Yes shocked to discover that there's a deficit!" Our new national priority must be to "reign in runaway spending (except for never ending increases for the military).

Step 5: In the face of massive criticism and Republican resistance, Clinton or Obama abandons all attempts to pass any progressive legislation and devotes the remainder of their term to "entitlement reform." In Obama's case that means cutting Medicare and Social Security.

Step 6: Discouraged by this betrayal, the base abandons the Democratic party. Republican is elected President!

Step 7: Hooray! It's back to another decade of greedy looting and massive tax cuts for the rich!  

---

by: Cugel @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 05:45:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

SS and Medicare Still Third Rail (0.00 / 0)

Step 5 is a tough one.  So far they've just disguised a massive government bailout of insurance companies as HCR, but cutting SS or Medicare is still a third rail.  Heck, even the Repubs try to look as if they're PROTECTING Medicare.

Despite all that, the rip off of the middle class has gotten very blatant.  I'm not so sure the combined weight of the corporate sponsored teabaggers and the Rahm Blue Dogs or massive infusions of printing money are going to be able to stop a crash.  There's just not much more blood to squeeze out of the middle class, we're broke.

But the basic game plan you outline has worked before, and I'm sure they'd do it again if they can.

---

by: glenjo @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:05:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure (4.00 / 2)

How this plays out.

Hopefully, the don't put a wall street goon in his place. There was talk of Jamie Dimon, ceo of morgan stanley taking a government post after he leaves next year. One thing to keep in mind is that Bernanke hasn't worked on wall street before, I think it should be kept that way. No more goldman ceos running our country please.

---

by: Zugzugzug @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 05:37:09 AM UTC