50 Votes to Confirm Bernanke

[cal04]

by mcjoan
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/26/830580/-50-Votes-to-Confirm-Bernanke

You want to see a clear reflection of priorities in the Senate? They can't come together to agree to pass healthcare reform by reconciliation, but Bernanke will get a simple majority vote:

When it comes to progressive priorities in the Senate, there’s one standard: 60 votes are needed. But for Ben Bernanke, there’s a second standard: 50 will be just fine, thank you.

Democratic leaders in the Senate are asking colleagues who are reluctant to support Bernanke’s nomination for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman to nevertheless vote with them to end a filibuster and allow a vote on the actual nomination. The reluctant members would then be free to vote no to express their displeasure. Several Democrats have committed to just that and others are considering it.

I'm with Ezra (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/senate_considering_radical_mov.html) who calls it "an appalling way for the Senate to act," and Krugman(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/bernanke-reconciliation/)

I can hardly think of anything more calculated to solidify the view that Wall Street doesn’t have to play by the rules that apply to everyone else.

At least we now have confirmation of where Senator leadership's priorities lie--they do care more about Wall Street than Main Street. If comprehensive healthcare reform dies because of the obstructionists in the Senate, remember this.

Update: And here's a question that needs to be answered--are they going to wait for Brown to be seated to take this vote? Does the will of the people of Massachusetts count on this one? I'll report back if I find out anything on that front.

[elocs]

1. Did they already vote to end debate which would have needed 60 votes

and this was simply the final vote that only needed 51 votes? That would make a difference.

[skyounkin]

2. BAH!!

You beat my thread by two minutes!!

::shakes fist::