The New Republic

Its a good strategy but is it good statesmanship? I am a partisan democrat but it is a bit disheartening to me to see what the Democrats are doing when not two months ago, we were decrying the relentless, unyielding obstruction of the Republicans regarding health care, and a year before that, the stimulus package. I understand that Dodd et al. attempted to negotiate in good faith and got nowhere and have turned to this strategy only as a last resort. However, if we have any consistency as a party, we should look at this strategy only as a last ditch effort to pass meaningful reform and not as a partisan politics. Yes, its good politics to do this but lets not get gleeful over the Republicans shooting themselves in the head. Its emblematic of a broken system where the only way you can pass anything in the Senate is through majoritarian means (i.e., when you have a filibuster proof or near filibuster proof majority or are passing it through reconciliation).

- ruyehara88

April 19, 2010 at 1:07pm

That would be ideal, but I worry that the Republican meme that this will lead to "endless" bailouts in the future will be the one to take hold, even if it is completely untrue. As in the healthcare debate, Republicans have learned that they can spout provable falsehoods, yet carry the message of the day. This is possible due to media equivocation (A said, B said journalism), a lack of fact-checking, and a fear that reporting true facts will bring charges of a liberal bias. It also relies on an intrinsic distrust of government, lack of deep policy knowledge among the media and populace (as Chait has repeatedly pointed out) and the low standing of the Democrats right now. Case in point- earlier last week it seemed as if a few Republicans might defect or at least seemed open to considering the reform package. By Thursday, McConnell had defined the Republican talking points, and by Friday the few "gettable" Republicans had disappeared. With poor Dem messaging and the lockstep conservative media industry, I predect this will blow up in the Dems face, just like healthcare. Sigh...

- skottyj

April 19, 2010 at 1:11pm

ruye and skot: What would you do??Nothing?? Surrender before you start? You cant do statesmanship with those that don't have the interest of America as a primary goal, but rather your defeat and their empowerment. And, like Grant dismissing his worry-wart Generals on Lee, why don't you concentrate on what we might do to them rather than getting all concerned about how they might do a double back flip and do something to us.

- drofnats1

April 19, 2010 at 1:35pm

I may be naive, but I think the Republicans stonewall this one at their own significant peril. Yes, they're good at telling lies and making them stick, but the folks I talk to out here in the great unwashed hinterland really aren't in a mood to cut Wall Street any flack. Whereas, with health care, there was a deep core of ambivalence amongst the electorate about reform, I don't think there is any on finance reform, outside Wall Street. And why should there be? Health care reform impacts everyone, so it's easy to twist that into a negative impact. Financial regulation reform has very little downside for the public, and is emotionally satisfying ('get those crooks') to boot. My money says that taking a strong bill to the Senate floor is the best path for the Democrats. I think the moderate Republicans they need will cave, given the anger I see out here.

- IowaBeauty

April 19, 2010 at 1:40pm

One positive result of the Republican decision to oppose all financial reform should be allowing Democrats to maximize the progressiveness of the legislation. Once the GOP leadership has declared its opposition using language that does not admit of compromise on any conceivable bill, so-called "moderates" like Lieberman no longer have the fig leaf of a quest for "bipartisanship" to cover their opposition. Without that fig leaf, their bargaining position lacks credibility, and so the bill can be made noticeably less milquetoast without endangering an intra-Democratic split.

- rhubarbs

April 19, 2010 at 1:54pm

- A vote Wednesday or Thursday? Not if President Obama is speaking at Cooper Union on Thursday. Plus more than a few Republicans are being worked and leadership in the GOP doesn't have near the grip on everyone's balls as they had on HCR. They had plenty of wackos stepping out last year and McConnell seems lonely and feeble in presenting their case. Who would show up at the White House this time for an all day one on one? There are few comparisons to HCR inside DC. Further, this isn't an issue where the masses will turn out because there aren't any slogans from Luntz that can draw a straight line between reigning in Wall Street to the haters of change. Finally, a lot of people lost their ass over the last 18 months and they aren't the sorts to take getting screwed lightly. Only a few could hope to gain if they let the casino run on and a lot of big wealth knows they stand to lose - - sooner or later. The markets are clicking and investors are ready to buy, but not get scammed.

- michael

April 19, 2010 at 2:05pm

I'm not arguing that people don't support coming down on Wall Street and politicians support it at their peril. I just think the Republicans will be able to successfully to turn reality on its head and appear that they are the ones opposing Wall Street and its the Dems who are crafting another bailout. Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant to them and the media.

- skottyj

April 19, 2010 at 3:26pm

Given what you've said, it might be effective for Obama to have another big publicly covered, "open" summit with the Republicans , like he did with health care. Exposure and repeated non-limited questioning and debate (unlike the horrible, controlled, limited, explain it in two minutes so the winner is the one with the better soundbites and zingers not the better points, presidential debates) really hurts the deceptive party with positions highly unpopular to the public if the public really knew what they were. Thus, as with health care, this could really expose and hurt the Republicans.

- RHSerlin

April 19, 2010 at 7:11pm