Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Feingold Fallacy.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:07 PM
Original message
The Feingold Fallacy.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month...

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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Very, very interesting
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just hope the Dems force super-majorities on EVERY piece
of legislation if the repukes ever get back in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. I Like Feingold But He's Dead Wrong On This
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. Russ Feingold voted against repealing Glass-Steagall.
If he thinks he has more "moral purity" than most of his colleagues, then he's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. So did 43 other Democrats. He voted against the conference report, but so did Boxer and Dorgan, and
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 05:13 PM by ProSense
they are voting for the bill---not just for cloture, but for the bill.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. the worms turn into vicious killers lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
firedupdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thank You Very Much!
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. Pretending that this bill structurally changes the equation
in our dangerous financial sector is bad for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Pretending that it doesn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
41. The guys you linked to all talk about the importance of Glass Steagall
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yet if Dennis Kucinich were able to obstruct such a bill he did not believe in,
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. DK also wound up voting for HCR because he saw
the bigger picture.

Feingold is too busy displaying his finreg peacock feathers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Kucinich could not prevent...
....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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
43. Makes me wonder who Russ is really representing with this obstruction.
Things that make you go hmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Why do you and "It's Okay If You're A Liberal" want to cast doubts on...
...one of the most liberal Senators in Congress?

THAT makes me go hmmmm.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. Russ keeps digging...
He's really starting to look foolishly stubborn now. Stupak's got nuthin' on Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. maybe he should be placated the way a blue dog
or a 'centrist' republican is placated to overcome their objections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Amen.
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. When the majority of the Democratic caucus agrees, including Bernie Sanders, and
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 05:43 PM by ProSense
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.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Where would you get the two additional votes to convert 58 to 60?
You can pretend that at least two Republican votes aren't needed to get to 60, but that's just pretend.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. You're talking about three votes when you say "at least."
Pretending otherwise is just pretend.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Where would you get them: three votes? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Apparently not from the same place you'd get them. Or at least one of them.
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. If Feingold was "placated" they would lose about 10 votes..
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. And those 10 would lose their seats, given today's environment.
Russ is no idiot.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IOKIYAL Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. EXACTLY!!! People don't think about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. If someone with the handle "It's Okay If You're A Liberal"...
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 06:06 PM by ClassWarrior
...agrees with one, one needs to worry.

:rofl:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. So you think they would gain votes by placating Feingold??
How so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. No, but I don't think they'd lose them.
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
17. Totally agree with this.. Russ needs to back off the filibuster and then vote no..
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
47. That's probably what he'll end up doing. Meanwhile, look at all the discussion...
...he's creating.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. this financial "reform" bill would be worse than doing nothing.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. How are more regulations and a Consumer Banking Agency doing nothing?
Justifying Feingold not wanting for the bill to even come for a vote is creepy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine1967 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. This is the same thing I heard time and time again during HCR.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. He doesn't even have to vote for it......
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. "It seems?" So you don't even know? You're basing your opinion on a feeling?
:eyes:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
56. So far, every "reform" in the last 20 years has been worse than nothing.
It's so consistent that the very word has become code for another corporate giveaway.
:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. Did you have a problem with the filibuster when the GOP controlled the Senate?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Feingold in using it against the majority of his own party
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. The filibuster is always used against the majority. That's the point of it.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. It's good you have heroes......
Mine is my mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elfin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. From Wisconsin here -- like Russ a lot -- BUT
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IOKIYAL Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
31. Hey Feingold!!! W/o your vote the bill gets more Wall Street friendly
Dumbass!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IOKIYAL Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
34. Feingold must be short on campaign cash or volunteers
and has to do this to appease the FDL crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
35. He has EVERY RIGHT TO OBSTRUCT IT
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
36. If anyone wants to know what would be won, lost, and compromised on,
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 06:05 PM by babylonsister
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...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Thank you babylonsister.
And thanks for the OP. Come on Russ, at least let it come to a vote :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. wow thanks sister!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
48. This is right on n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
50. Apparantly, the right to "obstruct" is limited to the right wing Dems
who must be groveled to with a wink and a nod....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. If the shoe were on the other foot I suspect your attitude would be a bit different..
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. That would depend on the bill and the reasoning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Here we go again... The legendary "moderate" is a mythical beast.
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 09:53 PM by ClassWarrior
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-n...

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I agree with this article,.. most people are a mix of liberal and conserative values...
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. And NO Rape-Publicans are willing to negotiate with anyone. So the Dems who sell out...
...our values are the ones to be commended?

:crazy:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-10 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. There are a few willing but negotiations are also needed to keep the conservatve Dems on board..
and there are quite a few of them to deal with in both chambers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
55. Not "far from the progressive ideal" so much as far from effective. n/t
:kick: & U

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 22nd 2014, 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC