Talking to White House aides today, I basically knew that the president was going to announce the following strategy using the following rhetoric. What I didn’t know was whether he’d be able to say a majority of senators voted for it. Well, he got that done. The roll call isn’t available online because they held it open so Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire can get back to Washington to vote. The final tally on the cloture vote (according to the Associated Press) will probably be 51-48. Apparently, Jon Tester of Montana (who the progressive blogosphere worked hard to elect) and Ben Nelson voted against cloture. In any case, here’s the president:
Statement by the President on the Senate Vote on the American Jobs Act
Tonight, a majority of United States Senators voted to advance the American Jobs Act. But even though this bill contains the kind of proposals Republicans have supported in the past, their party obstructed the Senate from moving forward on this jobs bill.
Tonight’s vote is by no means the end of this fight. Independent economists have said that the American Jobs Act would grow the economy and lead to nearly two million jobs, which is why the majority of the American people support these bipartisan, common-sense proposals. And we will now work with Senator Reid to make sure that the individual proposals in this jobs bill get a vote as soon as possible.
In the coming days, Members of Congress will have to take a stand on whether they believe we should put teachers, construction workers, police officers and firefighters back on the job. They’ll get a vote on whether they believe we should cut taxes for small business owners and middle-class Americans, or whether we should protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
With each vote, Members of Congress can either explain to their constituents why they’re against common-sense, bipartisan proposals to create jobs, or they can listen to the overwhelming majority of American people who are crying out for action. Because with so many Americans out of work and so many families struggling, we can’t take “no” for an answer. Ultimately, the American people won’t take “no” for an answer. It’s time for Congress to meet their responsibility, put their party politics aside and take action on jobs right now.
The White House will now have the Senate take up parts of the bill in succession. A bill to help veteran’s find employment. A bill to put teachers back to work. A bill on school construction. A bill to extend unemployment insurance. A bill to extend the payroll tax cut. A bill to create an infrastructure bank. And so on.
By stringing it out like this they hope to do three things. First, they hope to get some of these measures passed. Second, they want to highlight Republican obstruction. And, third, they want to keep the conversation on the fight for jobs. For those who are tempted to call it theater, it’s only theater if Republicans and lousy Democrats make it theater. And, frankly, what’s the alternative?
You wanted a fight. Now you have one.
this is nothing new. you knew it and I knew it
The AP headline is: Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama’s jobs bill.
correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t this mean that the GOP has voted to raise taxes by not supporting continuation of the social security tax cut that was in the deal last year?
I’m so old that I can remember when Democratic senators, in the minority, would vote against a bill but refuse to join the filibuster – thus allowing some awful GOP legislation to pass or an awful GOP appointee to be confirmed, but allowing them to claim they voted no. Their stated rationale was that they filibuster should be reserved for special circumstances.
Now the same party traitors have changed their mind – but this time the result is killing off positive Democratic legislation.
Yep that was a long time ago – remember those days? 2006 I think it was.
And I do remember how excited we were about Tester getting elected.
If you want to know why a lot of potential Democratic activists are either staying at home or eschewing official Democratic party activities in favor of true grass roots activities – well, this is a great example right here.
GreenCaboose, I understand and share the frustration—especially for Montanans who worked to get Tester elected. Two things to keep in mind though:
1 – Add up all of Tester’s votes over the last 5 years, and they’re better (on balance) than Conrad Burns’ votes would have been. (No ACA without Tester, to name just one.)
2 – The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s statement earlier this year at an AFL-CIO/MLK Center conference on Jobs, Justice & the American Dream:
“In 1960 Martin Luther King supported Kennedy instead of Nixon to prevent America from going backwards.
Then he marched in the streets of Birmingham to pass the Civil Rights Act to move the nation ahead.
In 1964 Martin Luther King supported Johnson instead of Goldwater to prevent America from going backwards.
Then he marched in Selma to pass the Voting Rights Act
to move the nation ahead.
For Dr. King there was no conflict between voting strategically to prevent the triumph of reaction and leading a nonviolent mass movement to pressure a president to achieve profound social change.
When we in the movement struggled for social justice we helped weak presidents become stronger.
When we in the movement struggled for social justice we helped good presidents become great.”
What’s true for presidents is also true for senators, representatives, governors, mayors, etc.
Ah, but this President insults Liberals, telling them to stop whining and join the chorus for the great infallible Obama. Anything other than complete subservience is treason, unless your name is Lieberman.
Which, if you look into the history, is pretty much what all other presidents have done—most definitely including those who Rev. Jackson referenced.
Jack Kennedy was notoriously uninterested in civil rights—both because he barely knew any black people and because it caused trouble with Southern Democrats (who didn’t trust him anyway because he was a Northerner and a Catholic). (And his brother the attorney general was worse.)
Lyndon Johnson was somewhat better, but even he and his administration made it clear that passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act meant that major civil rights legislation wasn’t going to be a priority in 1965. It was SNCC, CORE, SCLC and the NAACP that forced what became the Voting Rights Act of 1965 onto the agenda with the March from Selma to Montgomery.
Point being for our times, Barack Obama and virtually any congressional Democrat will be better for the progressive agenda than Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and virtually any congressional Republican imaginable.
That doesn’t mean liberals applaud everything Obama and the Democratic Party do. It means liberals take thoughtful, strategic, disciplined, passionate action to advance the progressive agenda—whether that’s electing more progressive candidates or whether it’s lobbying for more progressive legislation and regulations, or whether it’s direct action in the streets and in the workplace for a more progressive America.
While you are right, it doesn’t take away the fact that it still sucks. We know that Ben Nelson is a d-bag. Why is Tester moving farther right every day the election inches closer(remember, he’s already dead to Markos because of his DREAM Act vote)?
I don’t know what’s going on with Tester. (Any Montanans know what’s up with him and his race next year?)
You’re absolutely right. “It doesn’t take away the fact that it still sucks.” But that’s the world as it is. The purpose of organizing is to build enough power to act effectively to accomplish your goals.
Look, when we’re talking about the public arena, it doesn’t matter whether Obama likes me or not, or whether I like him or not. What matters is power—which comes from organized money and/or organized people.
Sitting at home because Obama (or any public figure) hurt my feelings or disappointed me just weakens my own power. Now, getting angry about the lack of respect I’m shown and then channeling that anger into strategic action that builds my power so that—whether they like me or not—elected officials have to treat me with respect…to my mind, that’s a far more satisfying way to deal with the reality.
Yes, but who got Tester into office in the first place? Remember, he had to win a primary against the Establishment’s choice(John Morrison) of a crappy candidate, despite Tester once being President of the Montana State Senate. In fact, Morrison raised a lot more money, yet got trounced in the primary.
True that. Now Tester’s looking at (I assume) an uncontested primary and a fired-up Republican opponent next November—and he’s voting like a man trying to keep his seat (apparently). Progressive Montanans are going to have to decide how much keeping Tester in the Senate is worth of their time and energy. (If they decide “not much”, I hope they’ll use that time and energy for other progressive efforts, rather than just staying home.)
Oh, I totally agree Tester is an improvement. And one can certainly argue that in order to maintain his appeal as a “Rocky Mountain Democrat” instead of the more traditional variety he needs to take positions that are popular in his state. And although I’m not sure that this particular vote fits that definition, at this stage it’s just symbolic so it’s not that important.
I also agree that you elect Democrats and then fight to get them to live up to their campaign promises. But, when they don’t live up to their promises, I have no sympathy with them when they complain about their base not being energized for the next election.
Agreed. But this isn’t about having sympathy or not for Tester or any politician. This is about making cool, calculated decisions about how best to build our power to accomplish our goals. For progressive Montanans, maybe it’s re-electing Tester next year. Maybe it’s working with Schweitzer to use the ACA to create a Medicare-for-all public option in Montana. Maybe it’s something else.
Who are the two? TV didn’t say. I gather from comments here that Tester was one. Both should be kicked out of the caucus and not allowed to say that they are affiliated with the Democratic Party. As I’ve said before many times, voting against your Party’s bill on conscience is OK. Joining a Republican filibuster is beyond the pale.
Sorry, I didn’t see that you already said it was Tester and Nelson. Just got up. No coffee yet. Plus had one Vicodin.