Update--Cloture vote will fail: Cloture is about to fail. Collins and Snowe voted for cloture, while Feingold and Cantwell voted against it. Specter and Begich did not vote. So, even when Specter and Begich come back, Dems will need to find one more vote. Hopefully, that will be accomplished by getting Cantwell a vote on her amendment to reinstate Glass-Steagal.
***
Wall Street reform legislation continues to unfold in the Senate, with several dramatic developments over the past 24 hours. Here are where things stand at 2:55 pm:
1. Cloture vote delayed The cloture vote on the overall bill had originally been set for 2:00 p.m. today, but is now delayed indefinitely. Senate Democrats are caucusing to figure out what to do next.
2. Susan Collins and Ben Nelson on board, but progressives blocking passage Republican Susan Collins, and uber-ConservaDem Ben Nelson came out in favor of cloture today.
If all other Democrats held together, this would mean there are enough votes for cloture to succeed. However, many progressives--Cantwell (reinstating Glass--Steagal), Dorgan (ending naked credit default swaps), Harkin (capping ATM fees at $0.50), Merkley (reinstating Volcker rule), Levin (same as Merkley) and others--remain angry that their strengthening amendments have not received votes, and as such are not promising to support cloture. In fact, Cantwell just said she does not support cloture, as of right now.
Progressive anger over this turned into chaos--or as close as the Senate ever gets to chaos--on the floor last night. Tom Harkin openly angry at Harry Reid, Senators huddled every which way to strategize, strange procedural moves were employed (see bullet point below for the prime example), and more. Ryan Grim and David Dayen have good rundowns of the events.
3. Big strengthening amendment attacked to big weakening amendment Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin are two of the progressive Senators pissed that their amendment (to reinstate the Volcker rule) did not receive votes. Republicans had been objecting to holding a vote on the Merkley-Levin amendment (unanimous consent is required for amendment votes), and the amendment was also not deemed germane by the parliamentarian for a post-cloture amendment vote. Basically, there was no way to get a vote on their amendment.
So, to "solve" this problem, Merkley and Levin attached their amendment to a horrendous weakening amendment, filed by Republicans, which has been deemed germane for a post-cloture amendment vote. That amendment, filed by Sam Brownback, exempts auto dealers from new consumer protection laws, even though auto loans are the biggest instances of financial malfeasance against consumers, especially military personnel.
Now, to prevent a vote on Merkley-Levin, Republicans would have to also block a vote on the Brownback amendment. From a statement by Senator Merkley:
The Merkley-Levin amendment must now be voted on before the entire Wall Street reform bill receives a final vote. For the Merkley-Levin amendment to ultimately be included in the final Wall Street reform bill, the Merkley-Levin amendment must pass and then the Brownback amendment to which it is attached must pass.
The Merkley-Levin amendment will ban high-risk trading inside our lending and depository institutions to help prevent a future financial crisis and prevent bank capital from being diverted away from loans into trading. The amendment will also end conflicts of interest in cases such as Goldman Sachs and will send a strong message to Wall Street that betting against the best interests of their clients will no longer be allowed.
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it isn't actually a bad bit of gaming from Merkley and Levin. The best way to approach this is to try and get the votes for Merkley-Levin, and simultaneously work to the Brownback amendment anyway. It is still preferable that the Brownback amendment is defeated, thus defeating both amendments, but at least this way there is no way for the Brownback amendment to pass without a big strengthening amendment simultaneously passing (at a 51-vote threshold, Merkley-Levin should be a sure thing). We can't get the best of both worls-passing Merkley-Levin and defeating Brownback, but at least we won't get the worst of both worlds now.
4. Arkansas Senate primary saves derivatives reform (for now) And here is the most dramatic development of all.
Last night, Chris Dodd (who is managing the Wall Street reform bill), introduced an amendment to gut the derivatives regulation that is at the heart of the bill. The original derivatives language had been written by Agriculture Chair Blanche Lincoln. It was pretty strong, as it required the biggest banks to sell off their derivatives departments. Dodd's proposal would delay implementation of Lincoln's language by two years, and probably forever, by requiring a series of studies led by people opposed to those portions of the bill (such as leading Obama administration figures).
Dodd had planned this course of action all along, but had waited on doing so to prevent embarrassing Blanche Lincoln, who faced a left-wing primary challenge from Bill Halter. If Democrats were to strip Lincoln's populist legislation from Wall Street reform, it would cause her real trouble, as Halter is challenging her from a populist and progressive angle. Lincoln can't afford to look ineffective, like a suck-up to Wall Street, or like someone who only wrote the legislation to get elected.
However, now that Bill Halter not only forced Lincoln into a June 8th runoff, but only polled 2% behind her overall, Lincoln is still in real danger of being defeated in the primary. As such, Dodd withdrew his proposal to gut derivatives regulations.
This is a remarkable example of both good timing, and bow primary campaigns are an effective means of changing Democratic behavior in Congress. Without the progressive pressure on Lincoln specifically, and on Senate Democrats more generally, the derivatives portion of the bill would already be gutted.
****
More developments as they come in. Everything is up in the air right now.
If you didn't see yesterday's prime testimony from retired Gen. Sheehan at the Senate Armed Services hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it's a doozy. Sheehan said the integration of Dutch gays into the military was partly responsible for the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. Make sure you watch Levin's reaction:
Aside from Levin calling his comments "off target" (you could tell he was restraining himself from harsher words), the Dutch had a response (several, actually) of their own (h/t Richard Allen Smith):
"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," Dutch defence ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering said in response.
"The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations.
"Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role."
In a statement, Dutch Ambassador Renée Jones-Bos said, "I take pride in the fact that lesbians and gays have served openly and with distinction in the Dutch military forces for decades, such as in Afghanistan at the moment."
"The military mission of Dutch U.N. soldiers at Srebrenica has been exhaustively studied and evaluated, nationally and internationally," Jones-Bos said. "There is nothing in these reports that suggests any relationship between gays serving in the military and the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims."
Dutch caretaker Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop said Friday the claim was "damaging" and not worthy of a soldier. "I don't want to waste any more words on it," he said.
Gen. Henk van den Breemen, Dutch Chief of Staff at the time of the Srebrenica genocide [note: van den Breemen is the official who Sheehan stated had told him open gay service contributed to the massacre.], called Sheehan's comments "total nonsense."
Given that Sheehan's comments included attacks on "liberalization", "social engineering" and even "unions", you could tell where this guy was coming from.
This week marks the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, a landmark piece of legislation that changed the U.S. approach to refugee protection by creating the legal status of asylum and a formal process for resettling refugees from around the world. It affirmed the U.S. commitment to providing refuge to victims of religious, political and other forms of persecution.
At the progressive media summit, Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin just said that "there needs to be an accounting of torture in this country." He was adamant that torture was a policy initiated at the highest levels of the Bush administration, and pointed the assembled media to a report on his website indicating as much. I cannot find this report on either the Armed Services website at this time, or on Levin's Senate page. If anyone else can find it, please post a link in the comments. Edit (Dan): Here it is.
Additionally, Levin insisted that he would continue his investigation on torture policies within the Department of Defense until it is completed. He urged the Senate Intelligence committee to do the same for torture policies initiated by the CIA. Further, Senator Levin indicated that he had urged Attorney General nominee Eric Holder to spend resources in the Department of Justice to finish the investigation.
Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had indicated that he would provide all Senate committees with additional resources (money and staff) so that, among other things, investigations of the sort Levin was engaged in could be expanded and completed.
Finally, Senator Levin insisted that Eric Holder would be confirmed as Attorney General despite today's delay tactics by Arlen Specter. Also, while I did not have a chance to ask Senator Levin if he intended to introduce legislation to mirror House Judiciary Chair Conyers's bill on a commission to investigate Bush administration crimes, I should have a chance to do so later today. Stay tuned.
I'd rather not spend all of my time talking about Hillary Clinton and her supporters and I was inspired by Englishlefty's diary on David Bonior. Jim Webb appeals to people who want an attack dog VP and Bill Richardson appeals to people who want a Hispanic, but both have negatives. There's Hillary Clinton, but she voted for the AUMF in Iraq. John Edwards not only voted for it, but co-sponsored it.
While I think that Obama should take a page from the "double Bubba" Clinton/Gore ticket and look for a running mate who matches his youth, opposition to the war in Iraq, and sentiment that experience is no substitute for good judgment, the notion has occurred to me that an elder statesman-type is satisfactory, if only for the purpose of preventing a non-progressive from being able to use the vice-presidency as a launching pad.
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
Tim Cunha (FL-06) sent a letter to Democratic House leaders.
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Alice Kryzan (NY-26) in a heavily contested primary has a video.
This week is a tremendous messaging opportunity on Iraq for anyone who wants to take it. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are testifying in the House and the Senate on Tuesday and Wednesday about the surge. The goal from our perspective should be to pose the question of whether our presence in Iraq is making us safer, rather than focusing on levels of violence and the tactical questions surrounding the surge. Barack Obama frames it correctly with this question.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also wants a quick end to the war. On Friday, he said: ""We still don't have a good answer to the question posed by Sen. (John) Warner the last time Gen. Petraeus appeared: How has this effort in Iraq made us safer and how do we expect it will make us safer in the long run?"
By far the worst framing is done by Carl Levin, speaking about the surge.
"In my judgment, it's too rosy, but there are parts of it that are not so rosy, and both pieces need to be declassified," Sen. Carl Levin said, pointing in particular to the portion of the report describing Iraq's political progress.
Levin also likes to blame the Iraqi government for the problems in Iraq. It's actually a fairly common line, with prominent Democrats undercutting a coherent message.
"We saw a meaningful reduction in violence, and that presented an opportunity to build up national reconciliation that was the underlying premise of the surge," said Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It seems that the Iraqis have largely frittered it away."
Republicans, meanwhile, see this week as an opportunity to push their message about winning in Iraq. Here's what Republicans are planning.
On the Republican side, a veterans group tied to the party is planning a rally near the Senate, while House Republicans are coordinating with conservative bloggers and will invite conservative radio commentators to broadcast from Washington. Republicans plan to push for new money for troops in Iraq; to highlight statements by Democrats that the troop "surge," which ended last fall, has worked; to point out some signs of political reconciliation; and to insist that troops can be removed from Iraq only when military leaders decide it is the proper time.
"The goal of the effort is not just to reinforce the message delivered by General Petraeus, but to launch a full-fledged assault on the misinformation campaign promoted by Democratic leaders who have lost every time they have tried to legislate defeat for America," said an internal strategy memo for Republican communications operatives.
It is clear that DC Democrats have several different lines of messaging going on that work against each other. Some of them want to drill into the tactics of the surge, some want to discuss larger national security questions, and some want to concede the surge worked but that the Iraqis are somehow at fault.
It's important to recognize that this is all a sideshow to the real question in front of all of us, one avoided by many of the politicians in DC. What do we do in Iraq to make our country safer?
The great Carl Levin-authored Democratic plan to own the war is on schedule, as now Norm Coleman wants a withdrawal, the same withdrawal that bipartisan groups are going to endorse because it's not actually, you know, a withdrawal.
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota says he now supports withdrawing 5,000 troops from Iraq before the end of the year, a plan proposed by Sen. John Warner of Virginia.
5000 troops, wow. That's amazing. So we'll only have 35,000 more troops in Iraq than we had just after the public voted to end the war in November, 2006. Awesome. How bipartisan.
Seriously, the John Warner retirement festivities a few days ago were just nauseating. Warner's a vain Republican that sends other people to die for his ego. I just don't get the 'he was so wonderful and oh check out his marriage to Elizabeth Taylor and also what a smart wise man he knew a lot about missiles' line that came from every news outlet all at once. Warner voted for Bush's war and kept voting for it for five years. That's a very bad, not a very good, thing. And it's not bipartisanship or independence of mind. It's just being manipulated by a stupid, craven greedy, and bloodthirsty spoiled brat, at best.
Honestly, this doesn't seem like brain surgery to me -- the chance-taking, things-shaking-upping position to take would be to join Bill Richardson in calling for a real withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The fact that none of the main three candidates have engaged with each other on the Iraq issue and, instead, all seem to have combined to prevent efforts by Biden (from the right) and Richardson (from the left) to make this a big deal seems pretty weird to me.
I know lots of people want the grand netroots to make our grand endorsement of the one true Presidential candidate and thereby rock the foundations of the universe, but, um, speaking only for every person who has ever blogged, ever, anywhere, I'll point out that by and large I don't want to endorse someone who wants to keep troops in Iraq. And I certainly can't get excited or advocate for someone who thinks that we should continue our merry adventure abroad, regardless of how much I dislike Clinton, because as far as I can tell Edwama have the exact same position as Clinton. I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest that way and pretend there are distinctions so that I can advocate for a non-Clinton named candidate, but even if I were to throw away my credibility that way you wouldn't believe me and I wouldn't change one person's mind.
Also, while I'm doing a bit of ranting, stupid articles on what the 'netroots' does or does not do, such as this one, or this one, to take but two examples, that ignore the fact that no top-tier Democrat differs from Clinton on Iraq, are really really stupid. They are much stupider than articles (like this one by Art Levine or this one by the usually-very-good Kevin Drum) that just whine inaccurately about what 'the blogosphere' should have done as if the blogosphere is some top-down organization with centralized management that controls the Democratic party leadership rather than a network of people with somewhat highly trafficked websites held in mild disdain by most Democrats on the Hill with any decision-making authority or useful information. Although to be fair to the previous two really stupid articles, the latter two stupid articles were pretty stupid.
STATE BLOGS
