Senate Democrats choose losers to lead
[Updated to correct date of Daschle defeat.] For the second time in less than a decade, the Senate Democrats are finding themselves with a leader facing political extinction. Tom Daschle, Harry Reid’s predecessor as the leader of the Senate Democrats, lost his own reelection race in 2002 in 2004, having become minority leader after the 2002 elections. For Democrats, this is not an unprecedented experience. In the 1950s, back-to-back Democratic leaders also lost their seats.
Checking out the relatively short history of the Senate Leader position shows that the Democrats have been more willing to choose vulnerable members. There have been only 11 Senate Democratic leaders (the position officially came into existence in 1920), and four have lost reelection campaigns.
Republicans have, in some ways, a happier success rate. The first Republican leader, though unofficial, was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who died in office in 1924. Including both of those men, of the Republicans’ 17 leaders (one was only acting), only one lost his reelection campaign, James Watson of Indiana in the FDR tidal wave of 1932. In other ways, not so happy. Five of their leaders have died in office (as opposed to only one for the Democrats).
There is no real explanation for the Democrats’ willingness to choose among the electorally vulnerable—each leadership election is unique and involves personality issues that have nothing to do with the history of the office. But, there are advantages to having a majority leader from a swing state. Just by dint of being elected in a state that could go either way, these Senators may be more attuned to the nation as a whole, and better able to pull the party from extreme positions. But the downside is that it may make them more vulnerable to losing—Reid became the face of the Democrats in the Senate, and as such is blamed by conservatives.
The Democrats can take comfort in the knowledge that it’s hard to believe Reid’s leadership position will be what cost him his seat—he would have been targeted anyway. He was vulnerable incumbent, and there is no reason to think he would have received any easier treatment from Republicans or conservative groups than Blanche Lincoln or Russ Feingold.
If Reid is out, the Democrats will not be trying for a three-peat. His most likely successors, Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin, both reside in much safer seats.
Joshua Spivak is a PR executive and senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College.
Institutional failure week
-The opinions are the author’s own-
By the end of this week, the U.S. will face a government that is unable to act to aid the economy and a Federal Reserve that is unable to stop.
The stock market may well rise on this dysfunctional combination, only serving to prove that the economy and market are becoming fundamentally disconnected.
Tuesday’s election may well deliver a split Congress with the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats clinging to a narrow majority in the Senate. This means that there is no chance of further meaningful stimulus and that Democratic timidity will likely harden into an intransigence to match that of the Republicans.
Rather than building bridges, the next two years will be spent dickering over tax codes, and, as the 2012 election nears, fighting trade and currency wars.
Many will argue that this is right, that the election will freeze stimulative spending that is wasteful and unpopular.
Perhaps, but economic growth is extremely weak. The initial reading of third-quarter gross domestic product, released on Friday, showed the economy expanding at a faster 2.0 percent rate. Most of the growth, however, was from inventory rebuilding, a process that is very likely to slow. Actual growth in real final sales was an anemic 0.6 percent, making this the weakest such recovery on record, according to economist David Rosenberg of Gluskin, Sheff.
Ron Paul is trying to downgrade power of FED and in yesterdays interview said: ‘If we succeed in Congress/Senate to challenge the power of FED significantly (what he suspect is not possible right now) ANY president would veto such decision’. Scary conclusion about real FED power. People and their representative including president cannot stop harmful actions of private cartel in any ways? Good morning America.
Industry defeated on U.S. derivatives reform
Senate Democrats have beaten back an ambitious, industry-supported amendment to the derivatives portion of financial reform legislation.
If passed it would have significantly weakened the administration’s efforts to tighten regulation of over the counter derivatives markets.
Yesterday’s vote went largely along party the lines (39-59). But Senate Democrats attracted support from moderate Republicans Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Charles Grassley (Iowa), making that part of the bill effectively filibuster proof.
So far lobbyists have largely failed to change the direction of the bill despite heavy pressure on members of the chamber to make it more industry-friendly.
It now looks like the final derivatives reform will be largely along the lines advocated by the White House and the U.S. Treasury Department, and that industry lobbying will not materially affect the outcome.
CHAMBLISS AMENDMENT Yesterday’s crucial amendment offered by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R, Georgia) (Amdt 3816) was a second-degree amendment to the main one (Amdt 3739) already offered by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd and Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, which is the chamber’s working text on financial reform.
Senate Rules permit amendments of amendments (“amendments in the second-degree”) but not amendments of amendments of amendments (third or higher degrees) except by unanimous consent.
After clash, Senate filibuster ends in whimper
Just a few minutes after the Senate failed for a third time in as many days to reach the 60-votes needed to approve a cloture motion on the financial reform bill (failing 56-42), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rose to his feet and asked the chamber’s presiding officer:
“Mr President, I now ask unanimous consent the motion to proceed to S 3217 be agreed to.”
After the president officer asked for objections, and heard none, he replied “Without objection, it is so ordered,” according to the Congressional Record.
And with that the Senate decided to commence debate on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. No roll call, no vote on the record, no 60th vote to cut off debate, just an absence of naysayers.
In effect, the bill moves forward by a lopsided margin of 98-0 as dissent melted away, for the moment.
Reid’s unanimous consent agreement provides both parties with a neat way out of an embarrassing impasse while preserving maximum flexibility for further negotiations.
For Senate Democrats it gets the bill onto the floor in exchange for a token concession (dropping the pre-funded $50 billion bank rescue levy most had not wanted in the first place).
Quote: “No roll call, no vote on the record, no 60th vote to cut off debate, just an absence of naysayers”
We should ask … is this democracy???
Obama healthcare drive looking sick
– James Pethokoukis is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
What just happened to American healthcare reform?
The political prospects for major U.S. healthcare reform have taken a decided turn for the worse in recent days (at least from the point of view of many Democrats). And you don’t need to be some totally plugged-in Washington insider to understand that.
Just take a look-see at the stock market performance of industry players such as Aetna Inc, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint. Shares have been trending higher of late. What’s been slowly dawning on Wall Street is that the legislative process in Washington is unlikely to produce a national public health insurance option that could eventually squeeze out the private sector.
Fact is, the prospects for any sort of bill that would produce major changes are in as much doubt as at any time since President Obama took office. Worried that the plan was growing too expensive, the critical Senate Finance Committee appears to have jettisoned any idea of a public plan option and is also cutting back on subsidies to help fully insure the nearly 50 million Americans who don’t have health insurance for one reason or another.
So what just happened? How is it possible that Democrats cruised to a huge victory on Election Day in November 2008 and are yet again unable to make good on their top legislative priority? Why are the ghosts of Bill Clinton’s 1994 healthcare reform debacle suddenly flitting about Capitol Hill?
What happened was the Great Recession, the political impact of which the Obamacrats completely misunderstood. Oh, they knew the financial and economic crisis helped sweep them to office. That part they got just fine.
What is going to happen to critically ill newborns and infants? I will probably not live beyond 65 because the government feels I should learn to live with my problems rather that receive treatment and watch my kids grow up. From what I understand, our once great nation was based on “LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Well, now our life will be determined by the government’s version of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest theory”, our liberties will be based on Socialism, hence I am not very happy right now. All I know I will NOT vote for Obama, I am sure he will not be re-elected. We need to take care of the citizens of the United States first. If you choose to come to this country, earn citizenship legally.
Now we will have Tea Party idiots who do not even know the Constitution. I just shows the dirty negative ads many of which are not true or distort the facts work well for the GOP. Now they had better do some good work or they will really be on the hot seat for being so vocal about the opposition. God help this country; we need it with the GOP in charge of anything.