Skip to main content

Where have we heard this before? "I couldn't support the bill in its current form. I am absolutely not throwing in the towel. I have no plans to support the current legislation. I hope we'll get back to the negotiating table."

Let's just get back to the negotiating table and spend more time talking about maybe eventually passing a financial reform bill, the kinder, gentler way of Republican obstructionism as practiced by Olympia Snowe for months, and months, and months in health insurance reform. It could have been different, as last week Corker broke ranks with his party, saying that Republicans had made "a very large strategic mistake" in not working in the Banking Committee toward a bipartisan deal. He's now back in line after straying.

Last week Mr. Corker, of Tennessee, said he expected a bill would pass, infuriating Republicans and many bank executives who thought he was making it easier for Democrats to push the bill through.

No Republican has yet signaled support for the bill and Mr. Corker's latest comments could reflect a new GOP resolve to oppose it unless changes are made.

For his part, Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd says he's still open to a bipartisan deal, and the White House open, but not particularly optimistic:

Axelrod made clear that invitation exists from the Obama administration too, but he sounded far from optimistic about the chances of a bipartisan financial regulatory reform package.

“We’re certainly going to invite them to participate with us,” Axelrod said of the Republicans. “There’s enormous pressure from the financial industry, huge army of lobbyists on the Hill. The Republican Party has generally been very responsive to that lobby and one hopes that some of them will break loose here and say we can’t allow the country to get into the same situation we were in the last few years because of the reckless speculation on Wall Street,” he added.

The difficulty on financial reform is that Dems don't have the same options for going it alone as they did in health insurance reform this year. Since the lesson of the need for Republicans to cooperate on major legislation hasn't stuck with Corker, this will be a major test for the administration and Dodd.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:20 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Somebody put a fresh dose in that hypospray for (4+ / 0-)

    Corker, I guess.

  •  This will be HIR redux... (9+ / 0-)

    We can see it happening, and there's very little to do to stop it.  I expect a bill incorporating so many useless Republican ideas that the final legislation will be as useless as a glass of water against a forest fire.

    This is more of the same kabuki, except everyone's wearing different outfits.

    "Grow up Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You're the majority." -- Rachel Maddow

    by cybrestrike on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:25:35 AM PDT

  •  What kind of Ship does not float? Bipartisanship (12+ / 0-)

    It is past time to quit trying to appease Republicans.

    "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, US AG

    by Mr SeeMore on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:26:00 AM PDT

    •  This is no different than their quick response (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, eXtina

      on the oil deal---"not enough".

      When will he learn????

    •  I can't support this comment in it's current form (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HylasBrook

      Circles and Squares.

      A similar debate concerned the table to be used at the conference. The North favored a circular table, in which all parties, including NLF representatives, would appear to be 'equal' in importance. The South Vietnamese argued that only a rectangular table was acceptable, for only a rectangle could show two distinct sides to the conflict. Eventually a compromise was reached, in which representatives of the northern and southern governments would sit at a circular table, with members representing all other parties sitting on individual square tables around them.

      I am not, I repeat NOT equating the Viet Cong with Republicans.

      Chance favors the prepared mind

      by tlemon on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:15:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Might as well go for we want and get it (0+ / 0-)

      filibustered so we have another defeated vote we can beat the Republicans over the head with.

      Might be able to get Snowe on board, but then Lieberman, Lincoln, and Nelson will threaten to join the filibuster so we end up with 4 bipartisan votes - One Republican with the Democrats and 3 Democrats with the Republicans.

      Jeez!  

      I hope it doesn't get to the point we can't do anything meaningful until 2011 when the filibuster rules can be rewritten.

  •  Toughen the damn bill and let the GOP block it... (23+ / 0-)

    And get Obama and top Senate Dems out on every damn talk show each and every opportunity.  Don't let the GOP win the frame war.  

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:26:24 AM PDT

  •  hmmm.."Let's start over and get it right." nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder
  •  Make them do a REAL Filibuster on this.. (5+ / 0-)

    If they do that, Oppoostion might fold....

  •  The difference here is that (14+ / 0-)

    there is no popular groundswell against Wall Street reform.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Democrats have to (not-so-subtly) let the GOP know that they will demogogue obstructionism on this the same way that the GOP demogogued HCR.  But, this time, the public is overwhelmingly in favor, and the GOP risks being painted into a corner with the bankster friends.  

    If they want to filibuster, BRING IT ON!  

    The GOP -- seeing that government by the corporate interests, for the corporate interests and of the corporate interests shall not perish from this earth.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:28:07 AM PDT

    •  I'm dying to see my new Senator Scott Brown twist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HylasBrook

      himself into knots trying to justify obstructionism.  He will most likely go along with McConnell and make it clear to MA voters that he didn't really mean that thing about being independent (in which case he just about seals the deal for a Dem to take over his Senate seat in 2012), or he goes along with the Dems to pass it (and then becomes the next Bart Stupak for GOPosaurs).  Either way we win (as long as the Dems ram this bill down the GOPosaurs' throats touting consumer protection versus GOPosaur sweet deals for banks - need a strong populist push on this).

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:11:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not just the Republicans who'll twist (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        Brown's arm - there are a number of financial companies headquartered in MA - John Hancock is the biggest.

        He's trying to raise money by lying & claiming Rachel Maddow is planning to run against him. Just think how major donations from financial institutions are going to get him to fall in line with Republicans' obstructionism.

  •  Dems are already blaming GOP for their inaction (6+ / 0-)

    This Congress had Wall Street by the balls a year ago.  They could have passed anything they liked in that climate.

    But no.. they just gave them billions and let any talk of regulatory fixes for the rampant corruption die for over a year.

    Now they want "reform".  What I want to know is why is trading these derivatives and other vehicles still legal?  Why wasn't this stopped over a year ago?  Why isn't even one official from even one lender sitting in jail for predatory lending practices?

    Oh wait.. it's all the Republicans fault.  Bullshit.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:29:21 AM PDT

    •  Had to Wait for Repubs to Regain Some Strength, (0+ / 0-)

      and give industry time to mount its campaign.

      Wouldna been fair last year.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:36:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly! you wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        want to be bold and make laws while you have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House, now would you?

        That would be, as you say, an unfair advantage!

        So you wait until you lose those advatanges so you can blame the opposition for blocking legislation you really don't want to pass in the first place!

        Anyone who thinks the Dems are the guys in the white hats here and are not beholding to the fat cats throwing money their way.. well, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to sell..

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

        by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:44:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Where are we? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    Have we reached 13 dimensional chess yet?

  •  The 59th Vote Song -- Slow Down, Movin' Too Fast (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    behan, divineorder

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:34:14 AM PDT

  •  start over with a blank sheet of paper... (3+ / 0-)

    okay, which one of these rethugs owns an office depot?

    It's truly a blessing to have total freaking idiots as your enemy. ~Rachel Maddow

    by oblios arrow on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:34:52 AM PDT

  •  Hey Mr. Axelrod, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Puffin, divineorder

    The Republican Party has generally been very responsive to that lobby

    And the Democratic Party hasn't?  Granted, not to the level of the GOP, but let's not kid ourselves.

    •  Well Here is the Democratic Party Results (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      last time:
      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
      Hard to imagine they could be much more responsive.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:39:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This speaks buckets to me... (0+ / 0-)

    "infuriating Republicans and many bank executives"

    Birds of a feather flock together.

    And we must make the Bank Executives as afraid of the American People and their duly-elected representatives in goverment (3 branches, except 5/9 of the Judiciary, but we will change that, just you wait!) as they are afraid now of the neocons, investor class and those who would monkey around with the economy in a boom-bust cycle (where many investors sell high and buy low).

    Make the CEOs afraid.
    Make the Board of Trustees afraid.
    Make the Middle Management afraid.

    Bring back control to the George Bailey and the Giuseppe Martini of the American People. As well as to the Juan Valdez, Joanie Johnson, John Q. Public and Joe Doaks people.

    I ain't saying put 'em up against the wall, no, no, but we need a definite course correction so that the TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL are able to experience the very real consequences of screwing with the American people (and with the planet).

    Ugh. --UB.

  •  A thought (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, oblios arrow

    I say in exchange for "meaningful" banking reform there be a mandate that anyone who does not have a bank account has to get one, er ...

  •  when pigs fly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, divineorder
    Both parties are completely beholden to money and if there is one thing the financial industry ahs a lot of its money.

    I have no hope whatsoever for any meaningful reform.  I am inside the industry and I see nothing that makes me think that anything will change.

  •  "Rammer Jammer Yellowhammer." (0+ / 0-)

    .
     The cool people here will get the reference.

    .

    "I have to go now. I feel . . . sticky." Anthony Bourdain

    by BenGoshi on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

  •  Screw bipartisanship (4+ / 0-)
    Obama and the Dems should go for the throat on this one. They don't need cooperation from repubs. This is one that can be won from the bully pulpit.
  •  Nothing Wrong With the Trading of Derivatives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    But not on a public, transparent exchange?

    Unregulated?

    Fuck the Republikkkanischen on this one--repealing Glass/Steagell was a disaster as was the follow-up. Bring 'em back.

    •  Why are derivatives needed at all? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't get it.

      The risk is still there, but it is just transferred to another party.

      Derivatives are like a ponzi scheme. You want to protect yourself from the bad deals you enter into, so you go out looking for a sucker.

      There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

      by upstate NY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The idea of derivatives is not bad. (0+ / 0-)

        In fact, sales of derivatives can facilitate the multiplier effect of money.  But the way these derivatives were handled - based on worthless mortgages, in the dark through private contracts allowed to be leveraged to the hilt and insured through policies also allowed to be leveraged to the hilt - multiplied liabilities instead of providing money for good assets.  So when the underlying mortgages were shown to be worthless, the whole house of cards came down.

        If derivatives were bought and sold in the daylight, on public exchanges, their creditworthiness could be honestly evaluated, their prices honestly set and the sales and leverage honestly regulated.  Apparently Dodd doesn't want to fight the investment banks and hedge funds to make that happen, though.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:06:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I for one believe derivatives to be a (0+ / 0-)

          questionable concept simply because they displace risk onto others who are apparently totally unaware of what they're insuring. There is no hedging of risk with derivatives. Risk is simply displaced. In fact, one could argue that risk is increased precisely because of that displacement.

          One way to dispense with this regulation controversy to come up with methods that make the banks accountable without regulating them (because they will always run end-arounds on regulation).

          Let them fail. That will stop the nonsense.

          What we should do is establish a national bank like Germany's KfW that both lends to businesses in need, worthwhile businesses, but also takes equity in worthwhile companies. This will keep our economy going.

          The threat of failing will curtail banker's shenanigans.

          Buyer beware. Don't go near Wall Street crooks.

          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

          by upstate NY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:39:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Real reform requires killing the filibuster. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greasy Grant, coffejoe

    GOP and Corker are not the problem.

    The problem is the filibuster and Democrats inability to get 51 votes to nuke the filibuster. Senators like Byrd, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Conrad will vote against the nation, against the Constitution in order to preserve their personal power gained from being able to block health care reform, financial reform, climate change reform.

    All positive policy is blocked by the filibuster. The US government is paralyzed by it.

    2010 election should be about which US Senate candidates will vote for or against the filibuster.

    •  Agree that filibuster is bad. What will GOP get (0+ / 0-)

      If filibuster is broken (which GOP might do anyway when they have power again)

      Flat tax instituted
      Repeal Estate tax
      Drill in Anwar

      So its not a total win for Dems

      •  US gets return to majority, Consitutional rule. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jyrinx

        Not rule of the Senate to obstruct by overturning the Constitution's requirement of majority rule in favor of a super-majority and super-minorities of one who can block legislation.

        US Senate is out of control and it is killing US. If the voters elect GOP to presidency, to majority in House, to majority in Senate, if they can further get majority votes for policy and if that policy passes Supreme Court muster that it is Constitutional then that is what the US policy is until voters make a change.

        Those are hard enough checks and balances to overcome, adding in requirement to please single Senators or everything requiring 60% vote makes government impossible.

  •  If Republicans f* up financial reform (4+ / 0-)
    that would not be good for them. Financial reform is much more popular than health care reform. Some of the moderates will cave. But I don't think it will be a strong bill, because those moderates will be in the pockets of big banks.
  •  Here Come The Purity Wars (0+ / 0-)

    As a newish participant on Daily Kos and other sites, I'm constantly amazed by the battle that goes on between what I call pragmatists and dreamers. I consider myself a dreamer to a point but I'm of a belief that an or nothing strategy when it comes to legislation is not a good way to run government. Would I have liked a socialized medicine option or at least a Medicare buy-in? Yes. But those things were not on the table in any meaningful way and I was not ready to say let's not have any reform because I won't get my pony with a big bow on it.

    In regard to financial reform, my dream would be to regulate these guys like there's no tomorrow and if there was a way to fuck 'em good, I'd say go for it. However, I know that's not going to happen no matter how much I scream or yell about it. No guillotines will be erected for my enjoyment so I'm going to have to fight for the most we can reasonably get the most votes for. It won't be perfect but I'm not willing to have nothing done because I won't have the bloodletting I desire.

    And as the song and dance begins/The children play at home with needles/Needles and pins

    by The Lone Apple on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:40:43 AM PDT

    •  Hi Lone Apple (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Lone Apple

      In regard to financial reform, my dream would be to regulate these guys like there's no tomorrow and if there was a way to fuck 'em good, I'd say go for it. However, I know that's not going to happen no matter how much I scream or yell about it. No guillotines will be erected for my enjoyment so I'm going to have to fight for the most we can reasonably get the most votes for. It won't be perfect but I'm not willing to have nothing done because I won't have the bloodletting I desire.

      That's pretty much my take on it, too.  As far as the filibuster rules, the best we can hope for is a vote at the end of this session to lower the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster, but this Senate isn't going to invoke the nuclear option or whatever, that's just a given, and so until the end of the year we're going to need 60 votes to overcome filibusters because the majority of Republicans, if not all, are going to vote against us, which means giving more negotiating power yet again to moderate Democrats.  I've accepted that, and I've accepted that for the most part we are going to have to take what we can get as long as the Senate is as it is.  Raging about it isn't going to change that.

      More than one thing at a time != Doing EVERYTHING at one time.

      by RinaX on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:00:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So nice you are above the fray. In other news, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jyrinx

      Elizabeth Warren says this:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      www.yesweSTILLcan.org

      by divineorder on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:02:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortuantely Dodd is not doing a great job of (4+ / 0-)

    writing this bill on his own. Why aren't there other committee members involved, from either party?

    It doesn't eliminate 'too big to fail'? Putting the consumer oversight board in the Federal Reserve?

    Come on, we need better. You'd think with his imminent retirement, he'd do the right thing. Or after being at the beck and call of the banks these many years, maybe he has forgotten how.

  •  I am optimistic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, eXtina

    Axelrod made clear that invitation exists from the Obama administration too, but he sounded far from optimistic about the chances of a bipartisan financial regulatory reform package

    the Lions might win a game or even the Superbowl someday.....

    How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened. Thomas Jefferson

    by coffejoe on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

  •  Can someone please....... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, divineorder

    Help me get the lid off my damn fruit jar?   Now I just have to figure out where to keep it!   All people who put money in their freezer are NOT crazy!

  •  It seems we never learn... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    Why try to appease the right with drilling rights without FIRST extracting explicit commitments to support other legislation. Handing out carrots to the GOP unconditionally simply allows them to gloat then dig in their heels yet again.

    This is horse trading 101, it seems to me, and I'm confused about why we're doing it again given the experience with health insurance reform.

  •  I used to be a 'pro' at understanding (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, Eric Nelson

    reconciliation;

    [Help. O wise ones out there!!]

    Diarist wrote

    Dems don't have the same options for going it alone as they did in health insurance reform

    But I'd thought that Dems inserted college loan reforms into the health care bill by connecting that provision, under the Byrd Rule, to reduction of the deficit.

    My Q: Aren't there upcoming budgetary issues whose provisions might include financial reform/regulation, sufficient [or tweakable] to also facilitate reduction of the deficit?

    If so, then good financial/budgetary legislation passed in the House - along with 'ball-less' [TM] legislation passed in the Senate  - might together be made subject to a 51 vote majority back in the Senate via reconciliation....

    seeking greater minds than mine on procedure...

    We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

    by puffmeister on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:48:51 AM PDT

    •  Not exactly. As I understand it, both HCR (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      puffmeister

      and Student Loan place-holders were inserted into this year's Budget Bill.  That set the stage for using reconciliation.  As far as I know, there were no place-holders for financial reform, so that is not an option.

      And, remember, the essential reforms of financial reform are not budgetary, but operative.  Those would run into the Byrd Rule.

      The GOP -- seeing that government by the corporate interests, for the corporate interests and of the corporate interests shall not perish from this earth.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:33:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Could this be why Dems don't have the same option (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      puffmeister

      It seems the reconciliation
      process can be used but once per year (or maybe session – I’ll edit this post once I find the answer). Which means that if reconciliation is used to pass the health care reform clean-up bill it would no longer be available to get the student loan reform legislation through the Senate. Or vice versa. So the solution is to combine the two into one bill.

        I don't know but I bet David Waldman does.

      Racism is used by the leadership to distract from the real culprits

      by Eric Nelson on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:39:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks Eric and ItsTehSup :) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        those problems do sound familiar, and you two have both helped stir some dusty motes in this ol' brain...

        We will restore science to its rightful place....We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil .... All this we can do. And all this we will do.

        by puffmeister on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:14:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I say write the strongest bill possible and if it (5+ / 0-)
    fails then go full bore against the Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street.

    Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit"...Health care reform passed 3/10.

    by Drdemocrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:52:40 AM PDT

  •  Banks are 'banking' on no reform (3+ / 0-)

    Which is why, last summer, Wall Street banks welcomed the health care reform debate. It distracted Congress away from them.

    Bloomberg News reported last August that Wall Street's "stealth lobby" is working "to protect one of its richest fiefdoms" and keep derivatives from being regulated.

    For Wall Street, the longer it takes to get legislation passed the better. As stock market values and the economy improve, anger at banks is likely to subside.

    "If we don’t pass it by early 2010, we get into the congressional election period where this is just too controversial an issue," said Charles Peabody, an analyst at Portales Partners LLC in New York, which provides institutional equity research.

    “You’ve got too many different financial interests with opposing views that Congress just isn’t going to go out on a limb and pass it and put their re-election in jeopardy. We don’t think we’re going to see legislation until 2011.”

  •  This is McConnell's strategy (3+ / 0-)

    The title of a NY Times profile of McConnell says it all:

    Senate G.O.P. Leader Finds Weapon in Unity

    So they got Corker back in line. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

  •  Reform is already being undermined by Dodd. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    Who needs Republicans?

    Political liberal / Bible believing Christian / Lousy at litmus tests

    by VirginiaJeff on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:56:58 AM PDT

  •  They should scrap the whole thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    and start all over!

    I think it's smart to keep offering the Republicans a chance to participate,  but once it's clear that they have no interest in passing a bill, the Dems should run right over them any way they can.

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

  •  Mmmm! (0+ / 0-)

    Lets' see - delay financial reform so it is at the top of the legislative agenda right before the November elections.
    Brilliant!

    "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

    by phastphil40 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:01:06 AM PDT

  •  Republicans On A Tight Rope Here (4+ / 0-)

    Much of the Republicans base of support these days is Anti-Big-Banks.  Much of the Tea Party movement sprung up out of opposition to the Bank Bailout, which they somehow forgot was conceived by the Republicans at the end of the Bush term (lucky for the Republicans).

    Right now Big Banks are hated across the political spectrum (left, middle, right) even more than private health insurers.  If the Republicans in the Senate continue to oppose increased regulation on banks which is needed to avoid "Bank Bailout II", the Dems. could easily label them "Pro-Big-Bank, Anti-Taxpayer".  This is not as simple for Republicans as HCR was.  They could easily get caught on the wrong side of the political tracks if they continue to stiffle bank regulation.  It should be easier for Dems. to pick off one or two Republican Senators who want to avoid the "Pro-Bank" label going into 2010 or 2012.  

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:07:25 AM PDT

    •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)

      Republicans can't win on this one. If they obstruct they lose - if they go along Democrats can chalk up another victory for America.

      "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

      by phastphil40 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:13:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree, +++ GOP thinks they have a winning hand (0+ / 0-)

      Using basketball venicular the GOP wants to run out the clock in hopes they win big in the midterms (which I don't think they will).

      The first thing the GOP doesn't want is to hand any issue to Dems.  

      The second thing GOPS doesn't want is to hand this issue to the Dems.

      The third thing they don't want to do is pick the losing side in a fight where they they look both beholden to special interests and losers and it makes Obama appear a stronger President.

      I think GOP caves quick on this.  I just hope Dems don't give them very much.

      P.S.  I imagine Obama going back to Massachusetts and talking about how Mr. 41 (Scott Brown) is now holding up financial regulation.  That would burn the GOP brand up here in Massachusetts (where GOP hopes to finally win a CD in 2010) as well as New Hampshire where you have 3 tight Congressional contests.  And it would get national coverage.

  •  Yes, but also unlike HCR, Wall St. reform is a (2+ / 0-)
    political WIN for Dems and a political loser for Reps.  Force them (the Reps) to take a vote IN FAVOR of Wall St. banks, it will be political gold for the ad campaign come this fall.  Seriously, to borrow from Luntz, characterize the Reps NO vote as one in FAVOR of allowing Wakk St. banks to continue using secret trades and deals (a better way to characterzie the effort to regulate derivative trading) that harm consumers, as being a vote in FAVOR of Wall St. crazy bonus (it may not be true, but that did not stop Luntz and crew with HCR messaging), and in FAVOR of keeping giant banks that prey on the American public.  

    Please, please, please Reps vote NO; it will be your ruin come this fall.

  •  Problems for the pary of NO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thomas Twinnings

    People don't like large financial institutions. They didn't even like them before this last melt-down.

    By now, it's clear which party is trying to reform the system, they either join in graciously and alienate their funders or try to bog it down and alienate teh voters.

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

  •  Are all Dems on board? If so, then..... (0+ / 0-)

    If Reid/Dodd can get 59 Dem votes for this, then I say go ahead and try and get it to a floor vote. And see what the Repubs will do.

    But if the Dems lose the typical 2-3 Dems, then I'm not sure that wouldn't give Repubs enough cover to be totally against it.

    And, of course, no matter what, if either the strong Bill loses on a vote, or a "watered down" one passes,
    Progressives will probably moan and groan and blame it on the Dems.

  •  No regulation, let's get rich!!!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Folks, here's sure fire way for you to get rich.

    Take out as much money on your creditors or mortgages as you can get, go all the way to the hilt with it.

    If you have loyal friends and family, ask them to purchase CDS contracts on your debt, many times over. If you owe, say, $400k, then ask your friends to purchase $4 million worth of coverage.

    That should cost them about 5% of the coverage, say $200k.

    Then go into bankruptcy and default on your loans.

    Meanwhile, your friends and family will get $4 million from their banks, and ask them to share it with you. Maybe they should establish a slush fund for you in the amount of $400k, and you have access to it with a trusty credit card.

    That way, you turn $400k of debt into $400k of profit.

    And the best part about it is that this is all legal!!!!!!!

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:39:23 AM PDT

  •  Put it to a vote. Another Wedge Issue for Dems! (0+ / 0-)

    The party of no or the party of reform?

  •  In Football, a Penalty can be called on Delay of (0+ / 0-)

    Game, and in Congress, only a Stupid and Uninformed Country can allow this "Delay of Game".

  •  Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    They want to pull the plug on Grandma's Social Security while defending Wall Street's reckless ponzi schemes!

  •  GOP spines vs Democratic spines... (0+ / 0-)

    It was not all that long ago (but paradigm-wise it seemed back when the dinosaurs were around) that not one of the Democrats seemed to have a spine.  They were bending over for Bush over and over.

    Then something happened***, and inch by inch the Democratic leadership and members of Congress began to stand up to the crazies and call them crazy.

    Hopefully for the next several months and years, the GOP members of Congress will not be able to show their mettle against their own crazies.  And not be able to call them crazy.

    There IS right now a TINY, TINY movement in that direction.  Corker is a sign of that.  David Frum, the winger pundit, was after THE votes, too.  They are only farts in an Oklahoma tornado alley, right now.

    The one good thing about enough rational GOoPers taking back their party - some day years from now - is that THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE RATIONAL.  

    The bad news will be that enough Independents will vote for them to put more of them into office.

    But that day will not be in 2010.

    *** I believe with all my heart it was when Bush tried to cash in his "political capital" and get rid of Social Security in the spring of 2005.  There were a LOT of people who just went, "Huh?  I've been counting on that my whole life.  Holy shit!  Maybe that guy isn't on my side, after all..."  It happened so quietly that not many noticed.  Soon after came the Downing Street Memo, and then the Plame affair - and then Katrina.  But people started to slide to the far end of the bench beginning with the Social Security issue.

    .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site