Double standard in Senate: Bernanke only needs 50 votes

maybe because the 60 vote threshold is a BIG LIE?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/double-standard-for-berna_n_436971.html

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. "By and large, I will say, and I think Harry Reid and the leadership would agree, that with very few exceptions, the Democratic senators have stood behind us on procedural votes. And we expect them to. We ask them to."

(...)

Get it? The GOP controls congress, still. Of course headlines often suffer from brevity. In this case, the GOP really is in no position to actually OK Bernanke but the headline makes it appear that they are making the decision. When you vote Democrat, you still vote Republican? It appears to be that way. (The headline was in the Denver Post.)

so the GOP now has a 41-59 majority.

Sadly, his support is coming from our side, and I don't understand why.

Used more then any time in history by the Rethugs. Coincidence?

People like Mary Landrieu sent it to the floor, even though they said they might not vote for it in the end.

Short memories.

remember this gal was part of the group that fucked California royally and was the catharsis for taking down a democractically elected Democratic governor..Gray Davis.

These are the people surrounding ..those surrounding.. Obama.


This Fed Chief Brought to You by Enron
By: emptywheel Monday January 25, 2010 7:59 am

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/25/this-fed-c... /

Just wanted to throw two tidbits into the debate on Ben Bernanke’s reconfirmation. First, this quote, which needs no explanation.

In the event that Bernanke isn’t confirmed, several sources say, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn likely would be elevated to acting chair of the U.S. central bank. Bernanke would be entitled to stay on the board until his term as a Fed governor expires in 2020, but the sources said Bernanke could instead return to a professorship at Princeton University.

Possible successors to Bernanke include three people currently advising Obama on the economy, former Fed chief Paul Volcker, Larry Summers and Christina Romer.

Kohn was traveling in Europe at the end of the week on Fed business, but strategy on the Bernanke confirmation was being led by former Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson, who is viewed as an effective advocate for the banking chief on Capitol Hill.

read the rest at the link



edit to add...



see the comments by :


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

JasonLeopold January 25th, 2010 at 10:40 am
15

Feb 22, 2001: Enron chairman Ken Lay and Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson met with energy task force executive director Andrew Lundquist to discuss energy policy.

April 17, 2001: Enron chairman Ken Lay and Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson met with Vice President Cheney for 30 minutes to discuss energy matters, including the California energy crisis.

April 20, 2001: Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson sent an e-mail to White House economic advisor Robert McNally.

May 23, 2001: White House economic advisor Robert McNally met with Enron lobbyists Linda Robertson and Richard Shapiro.

The Senate leadership actually wants Bernanke.

They were only going through the motions on health care.

It is the MSM and the desires of corporate/super rich that determines law. Polls of the people are ignored and/or conveniently adjusted and the world moves on.

This is VERY WRONG! There is a serious imbalance and it seems unless Campaign Finance Reform is done SERIOUSLY (good luck with this WH and Congress) nothing descent will get done. Sure there will be the breadcrumbs to pacify the public but nothing that will hurt business as usual.

The MSM makes it difficult for the public to unify together and work for the greater good for their best interests. I have found that the only unfiltered news is the internet and genuine discussion by the masses (a la DU, etc).

Sorry for the rant....i just feel disappointed that Democrats are nothing more than closet Republicans only eager to do anything if it benefits their own wallets or their buddies wallets. I have lost all respect. My heart is broken. :(