The Feingold Fallacy.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2010&base_name=the_feingold_fallacy

The Feingold Fallacy.


Russ Feingold has a new post up justifying his position and flinging invective at "actors" he doesn't have the courage to name who lack his moral purity. Here's the problem: You won't find the word "filibuster," "cloture," or "procedure" in there at all.

I respect Feingold's arguments about critical reforms that won't make it into the bill -- it is far, far from the progressive ideal. I disagree with his argument that this bill isn't worth passing and represents a victory for Wall Street -- it contains a passel of key reforms, many of them underestimated, that would make our financial system much safer and cost Wall Street banks billions in lost profit. Even if you don't agree with me that the bill will make bailouts very unlikely and bring derivatives out of the shadows, the legislation is worth passing simply for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has the power to improve the living standards of citizens across the country, especially the working poor.

Even so, Feingold has every right to oppose the bill. But he doesn't have the right to obstruct it. Democratic leaders are not asking him to vote for a bill that he doesn't support; they're asking him to allow a vote on it. By using procedure to prevent a vote he can't win, he's reinforcing the dysfunctional norm that every piece of major legislation requires a supermajority in the Senate. That's not just bad for financial reform; it's bad for the country.

-- Tim Fernholz

Now that it is Feingold holding up a vote, will we get less scorn for the fact we need 60 and no longer hear those sarcastic 41 to 59 is a majority comments?

of legislation if the repukes ever get back in power.

He needs to allow a vote and then vote against the bill. He would still be upholding his principled stand. By supporting the fillibuster he is enabling his real enemies; Republicans.

If he thinks he has more "moral purity" than most of his colleagues, then he's right.

they are voting for the bill---not just for cloture, but for the bill.

There is NO reason for this obstruction! None!

By using procedure to prevent a vote he can't win, he's reinforcing the dysfunctional norm that every piece of major legislation requires a supermajority in the Senate.

in our dangerous financial sector is bad for the country.

is to ignore reality

Consumers Win With New Financial Reform Bill

to the health of the financial sector and yet reinstating Glass Steagall is not in this bill. How can you hyperlink with the words "ignore reality" to this stuff as if it's refuting my point?
As for the second link, the CFPB sounds promising but it doesn't fundamentally protect the consumers from another meltdown. It's no consolation for structural reform.

DU would be having a mass orgasm. The trouble is that DK doesn't have and never will have the power in the House that Feingold has in the Senate.

the bigger picture.

Feingold is too busy displaying his finreg peacock feathers.

....the conference committee report from even coming up for a vote.

Feingold can. He's not just voting against it. He's preventing something from his own caucus from coming up for a vote at all.

Things that make you go hmmmm....

...one of the most liberal Senators in Congress?

THAT makes me go hmmmm.

NGU.

He's really starting to look foolishly stubborn now. Stupak's got nuthin' on Feingold.

or a 'centrist' republican is placated to overcome their objections.

NGU.

they're trying to get the vote of a Lieberman or Nelson, those two are lambasted for threatening to side with Republicans over Democrats.

Well, here we have a case in which the majority of the Democratic caucus agrees, including Bernie Sanders, and Feingold is the holdout.

The Democratic caucus is two votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster, and Feingold is assisting Republicans in their obstruction.

The goal is to get two Republican votes, not two Democratic. If Feingold insists on voting with Republicans, then his vote has to be supplanted by a Republican vote.

That is just how it is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You can pretend that at least two Republican votes aren't needed to get to 60, but that's just pretend.

Pretending otherwise is just pretend.

NGU.

NGU.

Maybe more. No GOPer would support it and most of bluedogs wouldnt either. The reality is Feingold is a lone wolf. He may be "right" from a purist POV but he's wrong from a realistic poltical POV.

Russ is no idiot.

NGU.

...agrees with one, one needs to worry.

:rofl:

NGU.

How so?

NGU.

if thats how he feels. The 60 vote supermajority shouldnt be used as a threat or as leverage. Its inappropriate use of a procedural rule.

...he's creating.

NGU.

So I completely agree with Feingold. If this bill were a net plus, I could go along with it; but it is a net minus to both me and Feingold.

Justifying Feingold not wanting for the bill to even come for a vote is creepy.

this nothing is better than something argument tires me.

You HAVE to start somewhere, and it seems as tho Feingold and others would rather slam the door shut because it's not all the way open.

This is no way to progress.

The point is that he wants to vote No on a procedural vote.

I don't think anyone gives a shit if he wants to vote No on the actual bill,
but that's not what he is proposing. That's what makes him less than principled.

:eyes:

NGU.

It's so consistent that the very word has become code for another corporate giveaway.
:thumbsup:

Democrats used it a lot then and in so doing killed some pretty bad things. In fact I wished they had used it even more and killed the Roberts and Alito nominations.

Like it or not, the filibuster is a Senate institution and in using it Feingold is no different from any other senator. He has every right to use the filibuster unless and until the Senate rules are changed.

makes him different. He is not being asked to vote for the bill,
but simply for the procedure to get the bill on the floor.

Feingold voted for Roberts.

Half of the Democratic caucus voted for Roberts, not just Feingold. And by the way I disagreed with Feingold's position on Roberts. But I doubt if there is one Democrat in the entire Senate that I agree with 100% of the time. On balance Feingold remains one of my heroes. He was one of the few who had the courage of his convictions to vote against authorizing the Iraq war. I will take someone like Feingold who stands up for his principles over your average bought and paid for politician on either side of the isle any day.

Mine is my mother.

He can be a bit of an egocentric showoff, when he just wants to make a point that he KNOWS has no chance of going anywhere.

He could be dumped this cycle, even though he shouldn't; be. Not seen as practical and not seen as bringing home the pork we need in our job challenged state.

I see this as trying to grab some press in a trying election season.

Dumbass!!

and has to do this to appease the FDL crowd.

Harry Reid and Obama have set the table with the rethuglicans and Lieberman. They let these miserable bastards hold the entire country--the entire world hostage, and now they are shocked! Shocked and dismayed that others have learned the rules so they can play the game to.

go here:

snip//

There are a lot of victories in this bill. We need to pass those victories into law. If the bill is defeated by pro-Wall Street forces over the next two weeks, the only parts which will be defeated are the victories, while all of its shortcomings will remain in place. If it is defeated, the 1999 financial deregulation package will remain the basic framework under which our financial system operates, and we all know how that worked out. If it is defeated, no one will ever really take on the banks again, as their victory would demonstrate their invincibility.

The text in the extended entry was prepared by numerous people associated with Americans for Financial Reform. It is a work in progress, but I hope you find it to be a useful touchstone.

Pass the bill.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/19301/why-we-need-to-pass-the-wall-street-reform-bill

And thanks for the OP. Come on Russ, at least let it come to a vote :mad:

who must be groveled to with a wink and a nod....

If Feingold and Kuchinich represented the Dem majority and the "moderates" voted with the Rethugs to block a vote, I suspect you would be livid.

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

I think the main difference is in willingness to compromise to get something done. Democrat "moderates" are willing to negotiate with the Republicans, the "hard core" progressives are not.

...our values are the ones to be commended?

:crazy:

NGU.

and there are quite a few of them to deal with in both chambers.

:kick: & U