The conference committee may be over, but the resulting Wall Street reform bill still must clear passage in both branches of Congress in order to reach President Obama's desk. With the passing of Senator Robert Byrd today, this is now far from a guarantee. Here is the state of play:
In the House Because of a deal made between Blanche Lincoln and the New Dems on derivatives, the House is expected to pass the bill. In all likelihood, the rule will be voted on today, and passage will occur tomorrow.
In the Senate After the bill passes the House, it will go to the Senate. Senator Reid had been expected to file for cloture on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, leading to a vote on either Thursday or Friday. However, the outcome of the vote, and thus the process leading to the vote, is now in doubt. Its time for some vote counting:
Narrow margin: Back in May, cloture was achieved on the Senate bill by the narrowest of margins, 60-40.
Robert Byrd: Five weeks ago, Robert Byrd was one of the yes votes for cloture. Since he has passed away, that is one less vote for reform until West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin appoints his replacement. Such an appointment would be extremely likely to vote for reform, but is not available until the appointment is made. It now seems unlikely to me that the appointment would take office this week, as Governor Manchin would likely wait until after Robert Byrd's funeral. He also may wait until after July 3rd, a move which might prevent an election for the seat from being held in 2010.
Maria Cantwell: Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against cloture five weeks ago. However, she was closely engaged in the process during the conference committee, and her specific concerns about the Volcker rule were met. As such, it seems very possible that she is now a "yes" vote, although she has not issued a formal statement to that effect. If she is a yes vote, that makes 60 votes for cloture.
Russ Feingold: Russ Feingold was the other Democrat who voted against cloture five weeks ago. He was never particularly engaged in the process, and for a long time made no specific demands in return for his vote. When he did finally make some demands, it was a long, kitchen-sink type laundry list that could not be met on such short notice. Few, if any, of those demands were met (at least somewhat because Feingold did not engage the process), and as such he is likely still a "no." So, we stay at 60.
Scott Brown: When Russ Feingold did not engage the process, it gave Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown enough leverage to force an egregious carve-out for hedge funds on the Volcker rule. Despite voting for the bill in May, and despite winning that huge concession during the conference committee, Brown is now talking about voting against the bill anyway because of a $19 billion levy on banks. It looks like Scott Brown has learned quickly about how to play Lucy to the Senate Democrats Charlie Brown.
Chuck Grassley: Even if Feingold and Brown are no votes, and even if no successor to Robert Byrd is made this week, the bill could still pass with one more Republican vote. Enter Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, who voted against cloture in May but did vote for final passage.
Richard Lugar: The only other possibility of a "no to yes" vote is from Indiana Republican Richard Lugar. It's a longshot, but not impossible.
At this time, no one is in favor of opening up the bill again, and giving into Brown's demands to win his vote. That would create a procedural nightmare, likely delay passage the bill past the fourth of July, would give Wall Street lobbyists another shot to gut everything that has already been won.
However, the count is clearly extremely close right now, and very much in doubt. Nothing is guaranteed. As such, while this was supposed to be the week when we turned our attention to the Kagen confirmation hearings in the Senate, and the Afghanistan funding fight in the House, it looks like we still have a lot of drama on Wall Street reform in the Senate.
Between health care reform, financial reform, and analyzing the fascinating and disturbing trends in right wing ideology over the last 15 months, I haven't written that much about the 2010 elections lately, but that will be changing in the months to come. This election season will be intriguing.
Back in March of last year, I started warning my fellow Washington, DC Democrats that we could be headed for a 1994 style train wreck if we didn't watch out. By following the Geithner/Summers plan to coddle the big banks and accept the classical trickle-down economic idea that "jobs would be a logging indicator," I feared we were both discouraging base voters and ticking off working class swing voters. My worst fears proved in the New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts elections, as working class swing votes turned against us with a vengeance and Democratic base voters - young people, unmarried women, and people of color - did not turn out to vote in very high numbers.
It is way too early to tell what will happen in November. There are signs that Democrats are starting to understand what they need to do to improve their chances. The passage of health care reform shows that Democrats have the guts and ability to get big things done. Pushing back harder and picking a fight with the big bankers and their Republican allies (thank you, Mitch McConell!) is incredibly important, and the Obama administration has been willing to do that. Going to the mat for immigration reform will help turn out Hispanic and young voters. And if the real economy - meaning jobs and wages, not the stock market or bankers' profits - starts to see real improvement, Democratic performance in 2010 might surprise some people. However, it's still too early to tell how all this is going to play out.
One thing that is clear to me, though, is that the mood of voters is more anti-establishment and anti-incumbent than it is purely anti-Democrat. When a formerly popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist is being trounced by 30 points in the polls to a previously unknown far right-winger like Rubio, when a republican icon like McCain is struggling with a primary challenge, and when a longtime, well-liked Republican Senator like Chuck Grassley sees his approval rating go from the mid 70s to the low 40s in a year, you know that voters' ire is at least as much about incumbency as it is about party.
In that context, I want to raise a big red flag about one of the most traditional strategies political parties fall back on in a challenging election cycle, which is what I call the "defend the flag" strategy. The assumption is that they have to defend all incumbents at all costs, and give up on challengers breaking through. I think that is a major mistake in an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year like this one. Usually, party committees and the numbers prove that in an average election cycle, saving incumbents is easier than electing challengers. In a year like this one, I think it's a huge mistake for Democrats to make. It's the outsiders, the anti-establishment, anti-status quo candidates who have more traction in this election.
In Florida, Kendrick Meek has a very solid chance at taking out far right extremist Rubio after he wins his ugly primary fight with Crist. In Ohio, both Lee Fisher and Jennifer Bruning are strong candidates to take out a Bush administration hack in Rob Portman. In NH, Paul Hodes is strongly positioned to win the Gregg's Senate seat given the nasty primary on the Republican side. In Missouri, Robin Carnahan is a very appealing alternative to Tom DeLay's closest ally in Roy Blunt. In Kentucky, if Jack Conway wins that primary, his reformer credentials give him a solid shot at beating extremist libertarian Rand Paul. And in Iowa, crusading anti-corporate lawyer Roxanne Conlin might have the stuff to beat ancient insider Grassley. These would all be pick-up seats for the Democrats. That's 6 races where Democratic challengers have a decent shot at taking a Republican seat.
My strong advice to my friends at the party committees and in the donor community: don't forget about races like these. Pulling back and playing only defense to save incumbents and seats we currently hold is a formula for bigger losses this year. We have a chance at holding our own this cycle if we play some offense well.
When you wake up in the morning and rub the sleep out of your eyes are you surprised to find a great shadowy figure in the room? We are past the Fourth and the "let's celebrate America" holiday feeling only to find that the lobbyists continued to move forward while we were distracted by fireworks and speeches.
The Wapo points out this morning that a large number of former inner-office employees of Max Baucus and Charles Grassley and other active Congressional committee members are being snatched up by lobbying organizations:
No, it's not a typo. As the health care debate quickly becomes a core schism between tweaking the current private insurance scheme and establishing a robust public option to compete against it, not only are the President and Oregon's senior Senator currently holding opposite ground on the matter, both are beginning to harden their rhetoric and dig in their heels. What's even more surprising is that Senator Wyden is slowly emerging as the standard bearer of REPUBLICAN opposition to a public option, gathering supporters for (or allowing them to hide behind) his significant but ultimately nontransformational proposal for reform.
Think I'm making that up?
{Jump below for the case...}
Week before last it was Newt Gingrich tweeting, "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." A week later, on his website, Newt wrote:
The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person,
as if some stranger had done it, not Newt himself.
Today, it was Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, usually regarded as one of the few non-insane Republicans on Capitol Hill, making a fool of himself on Twitter:
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley... issued two angry "tweets" Sunday morning as the president wrapped up an overseas tour.
For months Obama had left the details of health care legislation to Congress, then inserted himself firmly into the debate in recent days, including using his weekly radio address Saturday to declare "it's time to deliver" on health reform.
Grassley's first tweet: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."
A short time later: "Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said 'time to delivr on healthcare' When you are a 'hammer' u think evrything is NAIL I'm no NAIL."
Old habits die hard, I guess. The Republicans had a good long run snarling at everyone and everything in sight. It's pitch perfect for talk radio or cable TV. But it's not 1994 or even 2001 anymore. And Twitter is not Faux News. You don't impress or intimidate anyone when you strike a belligerent pose on Twitter for no good reason whatsoever, except that you're a one-trick pony and that's your trick; you just come across as a petulant twit. Which, of course, you are.
Asked to respond to Grassley's Twitter commentary, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said: "President Obama is gratified that the Senate is working hard to bring a health reform bill to the floor on schedule. He looks forward to continuing his work with them upon his return from the commemoration of Allied heroism at D-Day."
Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.
This week, the healthcare reform debate churned on behind the scenes as the economic crisis and treasury secretary Geithner's latest bank rescue plan dominated the news cycle. Meanwhile Democrats weighed various strategies to advance healthcare reform even without a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Drug policy made headlines this week. Attorney General Eric Holder expanded upon the administration's new found tolerance towards states that permit medical marijuana. The morning after pill will soon be available over-the-counter to 17-year-olds nationwide, thanks to a ruling by a New York federal judge.
So a friend told me that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa called people in New Orleans a bunch of complainers on their rooftops during the Katrina disaster, in contrast to people in Iowa who had a 'can-do' attitude during their flooding problem. I didn't believe him. But sure enough, here it is in the Congressional record, from last Friday.
So I don't want anybody telling me that we have to offset a disaster relief package for the Midwest where people are hurting, when we didn't do it for New Orleans. Why the double standard? Is it because people aren't on rooftops complaining for helicopters to rescue them, and you see it on television too much? We aren't doing that in Iowa. We are trying to help ourselves in Iowa. We have a can-do attitude. It doesn't show up on television like it did in New Orleans for 2 months.
Senator Chuck Grassley is considered a 'moderate' Republican.
STATE BLOGS
