The media continues to spin Republican refusal to allow debate as a Republican effort at bi-partisanship? Really? Since when has killing debate been construed as anything but obstructionism? The corporate media lives!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/financial-reform-fails-on-procedural-vote-more-negotiations-in-store/39523/
This vote means more negotiations--negotiations that probably would have happened even if Democrats had succeeded on this vote. Throughout the push for financial reform in the Senate, Dodd's bill has been a work in progress. It appears constantly subject to change, particularly in the portion that deals with derivatives.
It is not entirely clear whether Reid, who has preempted the amendments process before, will allow floor amendments to financial reform bill, but President Obama posed today's vote as an open door for bank lobbyists, as closed-door negotiations resume. In a statement after the vote, Obama warned, "Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether."
* * *
Politically, it's not so simple as Reid forcing Republicans to vote "no" on a bill they don't like, and to look obstinate for doing so. The media has sufficiently reported that Republicans are negotiating with Democrats on this bill--a big, complicated, important bill, mind you--that Republicans haven't come off as purely obstructionist as they did during health care.
Both sides have amped up their anti-bank rhetoric, both trying to appear tougher on banks than the other. With Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein testifying on Capitol Hill tomorrow, that rhetoric figures to get even more heated as Shelby, fellow Republican Sen. Bob Corker, and key Democrats go back to work in attempting to hammer out a compromise.