I know that for Obama’s critics the secret is that “he lead” or that he “show leadership” or that he “knock some heads” or whatever, but I think the roll call on the Bernie Sanders amendment should tell you all you need to know about the Democrats’ resolve to hike taxes on rich people. Evan Bayh doesn’t even have to worry about getting reelected and he still sided with the fat cats. Apparently, Democrats from Colorado or south of the Mason-Dixon line are supposed to be for low taxes on the wealthy that are paid for by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. I’m not saying that the president is beyond criticism on this, but we ought to take a look at our own caucus. Manchin, McCaskill, the Nelsons, Herb Kohl…these people are not on our side. The roll call on the full bill should be posted soon.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
35 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
the list wont be shocking. been talking about these folks all year
Both New Mexico Senators (Tom Udall and Bingaman) voted against the bill. Udall, however, voted for cloture because of his filibuster-reform push.
So much for The Witch claimning Chris Coons was/is a Marxist.
Leadership starts with the top. Obama basically led the Dems into a trap. He provided anti-leadership. I hold none in congress responsible at this point. Why fall on a sword when the President is colluding with the other side?
that gets the Obvious Award.
But the big question is “now what?”
if the party that’s supposed to be on our side isn’t, and the other party isn’t either, NOW WHAT?
You’re on the wrong side, because you have no side.
Not true, but thanks for the character attack, lying anonymous coward.
If Obama cuts his congressional wing loose and starts running away from them, then they are going to run away from him. He’s the party leader so he is responsible for maintaining some sort of party loyalty. If he can’t do that, he’s bad at his job as party leader, if he can do that, it makes him good at his job as party leader. Maybe neither is relevant to the issue of whether he’s a good president or not.
And Kohl is a dem in pretty good standing with the base. I actually see this as a canary in the coal mine thing- I think its just dawning on people how powerful the conservatives are right now- having an idiot as a figurehead in Bush was just slowing them down- they are running the town right now and if folks like Kohl are giving up, then its a very bad sign. And why is the GOP so powerful- because they’ve hacked our political institutions. Our political institutions require compromise and consensus betweeen our 2 parties. Withhold both of those and you are essentially holding a gun to the body politic. Obama (shrewdly or not) decided to play along and fight another day and we’re going to be living through a series of mini constitutional crises from now until election day 2012.
is that raising taxes on rich people isn’t a driving issue for people who are not liberals. When people talk about taxes they are first and foremost concerned with their own. The fact that someone else is getting a cut that they shouldn’t be getting isn’t all that important to them as long as they get their tax cut.
The Nays: 4 Republicans and 15 Democrats. The Democratic Caucus voted 44-15 in favor. People who I would consider liberals that voted for the tax cuts include Shumer, Boxer, Kerry, and Mikulski and Brown (who posted a DKOS diary attacking it).
Bingaman (D-NM)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Merkley (D-OR)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)
Franken voted for. He sheds some of his “liberal” stereotype in Minnesota. And it was a tough vote for him, but he came out on the safe side of tough.
Those who voted against did it because it was a safe vote; they knew what the outcome would be. Hagan, for example, can play progressives by opposing tax cuts for the rich, and independents for voting against a big increase in the deficit. And doesn’t have to take the blame for a failure to extend unemployment.
Perhaps if Obama wasn’t so committed to stopping us from making credible primary challenges, we could start to rectify things.
This is all grand standing. Everyone knew it would pass and it will pass tomorrow in the House.
A big bru ha ha over nothing but alot of TV time for the Congress critters.
I am, frankly, sick of it. The next big nothing will be the debt ceiling issue. The rethugs will manage to close down the guvmint, Obama will cave, the dems will cave, the rethugs as usual will hold everyone hostage.
It’s all a big cluster—-.
The system is rigged – it really has been hard to hide the past two years. Tea Party heads are imploding as they realize how they’ve been duped by the deficit hysteria mongers.
Maybe it’s me, but the next steps seem pretty clear, no? Obama will perform a flanking maneuver on the GOP during SOTUS, proposing cuts in many programs (SS, Medicare?). Not to be outdone, the GOP will veer further out in right field and demand draconian measures, holding the debt ceiling hostage. Nice theater.
Meanwhile, where are the freakin’ jobs?
This is crazy. I’m not even a deficit hawk and think we’re burning dough here. Does anyone really think this will stimulate the economy? The same assclowns who were predicting that ARRA would stabilize unemployment at 8% are now predicting that this package will reduce unemployment by an underwhelming 0.5% to 1% over the next year. Do the math, it’s ugly.
No, no one really thinks this will stimulate the economy—Mr. O. included. Very depressing.
It will stimulate the economy if the Masters of the Universe decide to stop playing the drama “Going Galt” by Ayn Rand and start to play the drama “Reaganomics to the Rescue” and start the economy going again. If that is what happens, we cannot pretend to live in a free market economy. We will be living with a very visible and fat hand pulling the switches on Wall Street.
Tarheel…”Going Galt”
Good work! You get the LFA award for “Quote of the Blogosphere” award!
Give me your address, and I’ll mail the trophy to you.
Does this mean you’ve read Atlas Shrugged?
I read it when I was in college, earned 6 bucks an hour moving boxes in a warehouse, and had to donate Blood Plasma twice a week for $35 to pay for groceries…it had quite an impact…now, according to the Progressive Blogosphere, I’m Evil!
God Bless America.
On the other hand, to show the internal contradictions inherent to anyone who understands the eastern philosophy of Yin and Yang…(Rand was an atheist)…
I’m taking an internal vote to determine my favorite quote from Jesus…here are the finalists…
“The Kingdom of Heaven is like treasure hidden in a field…a man finds it, and hides it again…and then, IN HIS JOY (emphasis mine), sells everything he has, and buys that field…”
vs.
“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul”
(Feel free to vote to aid my internal decision-making)
What I love about Jesus was he was likely the only man in history who would, in today’s society, be equally comfortable simultaneously being labeled a Progressive and a Tea Partier!
But what would He say to Rand?
I Love You!
Now I understand. LFA loves himself! Everything makes sense now.
“I think the roll call on the Bernie Sanders amendment should tell you all you need to know about the Democrats’ resolve to hike taxes on rich people.”
So, you figure a roll call on an amendment foredoomed to defeat, taken after nearly two years of party indiscipline, after the President proposes a take-it-or-leave bill it at odds with the amendment, and after a crushing defeat at mid-terms, is a fair indicator of how blame should be distributed among the Senate Democrats and the President? That the paucity of results was inevitable, given the makeup of the Senate? Isn’t that just another way of saying that presidential leadership either does not exist or is no longer possible? Or is it another way of saying that the President has always gotten pretty much the outcomes he wanted?
“No longer possible” is not out of the question. If there are not enough followers, it doesn’t matter how hard you lead.
And by “no longer possible”, I mean for any Democratic President. If the people don’t know what is going on with any accuracy, they can’t make good political judgments.
The Republican attempts to create their own reality eventually run into reality itself. Until that happens again and the people get wise, it is tough to lead scared politicians.
Actually, scared politicians are the easiest kind to lead. Just depends on who scares them. No one is scared of this president; not his putative friends, and certainly not his apparent enemies.
“Putative”…
Best word used on this thread…
Good Work!
I don’t think this vote is really a fair basis for judging the Senate Democrats. If you want them to vote against the entire compromise, fine. But if you (reluctantly) think that the compromise should pass, then you’d have to vote against the Sanders Amendment because if the Amendment passes, then the compromise does not.
Having said that, there are plenty of other reasons to be disappointed in specific Senate Democrats, especially spineless wimps like Evan Bayh. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons to like them, including that all but 1 Senate Democrat voted for DADT repeal, and will hopefully do so again soon now that the House has passed a standalone repeal bill.
You say the Democrats who voted against the amendment are “not on our side”, yet they voted the way Obama WANTED them to vote. Now I, for one, am perfectly willing to endorse the logical conclusion here which is to say that Obama is “not on our side”.
Are you?
Ummmmm isn’t the point of “cracking heads”
to knock sense into some people?
I think that’s why they call it leadership.
I think a moment in time has past that Obama is destined to be a one termer like HW Bush. HW had his “Read my lips no New Taxes moment.”
Obama is stating that Tax cuts will stimulate the economy. I doubt Obama will have enough courage to pass DREAM Act or veto the tax cut bill if the DREAM ACT is not passed.
Progressives…do some soul searching…take Evan Bayh…he’s a good guy, who, from my right-wing-nut-job perspective sincerely means well for the American People.
He knows that increasing taxes on
A. “Millionaires and Billionaires” (Democrat-ese)
or
B. “Job Creators” (Republican-ese)
Is bad for job creation, bad for economic growth, and bad for this country.
Bayh is probably one of the best guys you have, and you trash him…no wonder he retired.
Bayh lives in the real world…
For Christ’s sake…we “nut-jobs” think Obama is a socialist, but even he understands this…
You guys are losing it.
You’re a fucking joke.
I agree…I am a Joke…
So are we all…
God Bless You, Robert!
“Wait till get a load of me”
I fully agree that we should look at our own caucus but how is it that Obama can get Mitch – destroy Obama – McConnell on board and not Bernie – caucused with the democrats since forever – on board?
C’mon I’m all in favor of realpolitik but amateurs are amateurs. You can’t paper over that.
Because Bernie is looking out for the little guy and not millionaires. H
So much for The Witch claimning Chris Coons was/is a Marxist.