Indiana Voters Need to Say "Bye" to Evan Bayh

BAYH STICKS UP FOR GOP OBSTRUCTIONISM....

Steve Benen has the story:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told his colleagues yesterday, "Don't let the Republicans filibuster us into failure. We want to succeed, and to succeed, we need to stick together."

It sounds like a pretty simple, common sense concept. The electorate has given Democrats a chance to govern, and expect them to deliver. Members of the caucus "may vote against final passage on a bill," Durbin said, but like-minded colleagues should at least reject the idea of "allowing the filibuster to stop the whole Senate." He concluded, "We ought to control our own agenda."

Some "centrist" Dems don't see it that way.

Evan Bayh, a moderate from Indiana, said he would not be inclined to vote to cut off a filibuster on a bill if he opposed the substance of the underlying measure, and he predicted his colleagues would feel the same way.

"Most senators aren't sheep," he said. "They don't just go blindly along without thinking about things, and I don't think we want them to do that."

It's hard to overstate how absurd this is. If legislation Bayh doesn't like comes to the floor, he can vote against it. Before that, he can offer amendments, give speeches, and encourage others to agree with him. Senators, as he noted, aren't sheep. Some bills may enjoy the party's support, but not everyone in the party will see the issue the same way.

But that's not what Bayh is arguing here. He's saying he's inclined to help the failed, discredited minority block the Senate from even giving bills a vote in the first place. It's not enough for Bayh to vote with Republicans on key issues, he wants to help the GOP ensure there is no vote.

I'm reminded once again of remarks by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who noted last week that senators in the Democratic caucus should feel free to vote for or against any bill, but being a member of the caucus should, at a minimum, mean opposition to Republican obstructionism: "I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster."

The bottom line is, Bayh is arguing that he may occasionally want to help members of the other party abuse procedural tactics to block the agenda of his own party. "No" isn't enough for him. "No vote" is.

Do the Bankers Own Congress?

Legislation sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) recently failed to overcome a 60-vote filibuster in the Senate. This measure would have allowed bankruptcy judges "to modify troubled mortgages, lowering the interest rate or principal balance, a process known as a cramdown. Bankruptcy courts can already make those changes for a second home or investment property, but not a primary residence."

Durbin noted that estimated foreclosures during the housing crisis has ballooned from 2 million to 8 million since his campaign for the change to the bankruptcy code began. He said, "I'll be back. I'm not going to quit on this."

Supporters argued the measure would keep 1.7 million borrowers in their homes, but it ultimately foundered in the face of fierce financial industry and Republican opposition. The bankruptcy modification provision, which was offered an amendment to a broader housing bill, failed by a vote of 45 to 51.

Daily Kos is correct:

The concept by Durbin, Boxer, and Schumer was simple -- allow bankruptcy judges to change terms of peoples' mortgages so that they could make payments that they could afford.

This is a sad day for this country when we have so-called "Democrats" who cave into the Republicans as though George Bush were still in office and Tom DeLay, John Boehner, and Roy Blunt were stalking the floors of Congress bullying reluctant members to go along with the Bush administration's unconstitutional schemes.

The following so-called "Democrats" decided that they would favor the banking industry over the well-being over 2 million people whose homes are in danger of being foreclosed on:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)

An interesting point is that 5 of the 12 senators who voted NO [in bold] had previously joined with Evan Bayh's "conservadems." Bayh even voted YES on this bill.

Then of course Arlen Specter, who just switched to being a Democrat in name only, also voted with the Republicans.

Anyone Surprised? Maybe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be.

Sen. Reid believes that the Senate will agree to bipartisan legislation without the need for reconciliation. Reconciliation would insure that major bills would pass by a simple majority vote and avoid a Republican filibuster. He specifically sees this bipartisan legislation working on the issue of health care.

As evidence that he's hoping not to rely on reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes, Reid noted that with Sen. Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week, he would need just one Republican to cross over to get the 60 votes needed.

Sen. Reid needs to wake up to reality. The vote on the Durbin amendment was bipartisan only on the Republican side.

What about President Obama? According to Arianna Huffington, Obama needs to say 'enough' to the bankers.