Obama can’t get 50 votes for Bernanke?
posted at 12:55 pm on January 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Call it a moment of rare bipartisanship on Capitol Hill — and a deeply troublesome sign for Barack Obama’s ability to get anything done in Congress this year. Just a few weeks removed from being hailed as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, Ben Bernanke can’t get a vote for confirmation in another term as Fed chair — and if he did, he may not like the results:
Amidst the voter anger at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., ABC News has learned that the Senate Democratic leadership isn’t sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. …
“The American people are disgusted with the greed and recklessness of Wall Street,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with The Associated Press last month. “People are asking, ‘Why didn’t the Fed intervene at the appropriate time to stop the casino-type activities of large financial companies?’”
Sanders, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., have all put holds on Bernanke’s nomination, requiring 60 votes to proceed to a vote.
Bernanke got a less-than-rousing endorsement from the Senate Banking Committee in December as Time feted him, getting a 16-7 approval for a floor vote in the Senate. While a filibuster could get applied to Bernanke, that doesn’t appear to be what’s worrying Reid. He’s more worried about a revolt on his Left than obstructionism on the Right:
Roll Call reported this week that at the Senate Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday, “according to senators, liberals spoke out against confirming Bernanke for a second term. Those liberals tried to make the case that the White House needs to put in place fresh economic advisers to focus on ‘Main Street’ issues like unemployment rather than Wall Street concerns. Moderates were more reserved, senators said, but have similarly withheld their support for Bernanke.”
Bernanke doesn’t deserve the laudatory credit given him by Time, but he doesn’t deserve all of the blame heaped on him by Senate Democrats. In fact, a good deal of that blame belongs squarely on their shoulders, first for the conditions that led to the collapse and the policies adopted afterward. After all, it wasn’t Bernanke or his predecessor that demanded and then incentivized the subprime loan market to get people into homes they couldn’t afford. Bernanke didn’t tell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up all those loans and create securities from bad mortgages that wound up as crypto-junk bonds with the patina of federal guarantees. That blame falls squarely on Congresses from 1998 until 2007.
It appears that this is more than just Democrats playing CYA by making Bernanke the scapegoat. After losing the ultra-safe Massachusetts seat, they’re worried about the perception that they wasted a full year playing around with a health-care overhaul that no one likes while ignoring the fact that over 3.4 million jobs got incinerated. Congress and the White House both would like to pivot to economic policy, but neither seems capable of actually showing leadership on the agenda. Making Bernanke and Obama sweat for and through a confirmation vote sends a very clear message that in an election year, Democrats have to be seen as doing something — anything — on jobs.
If Obama can’t get 50 votes for Bernanke, he’s going to find 2010 a difficult slog indeed. But on the agenda-leadership front, Congressional Democrats would help themselves most by kicking Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer from their leadership positions and giving the gavel to someone who can bring the agenda back to a centrist position that could win them some Republican support — and political cover.
Update: Five Democrats have already publicly lined up against Bernanke, including Barbara Boxer — who voted for TARP:
Only five Democrats have publicly said they will oppose the newly in-jeopardy re-nomination of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. But word late this morning that Sen. Barbara Boxer is among them must be particularly troubling for Bernanke supporters.
Boxer is the first Democrat to oppose Bernanke who voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout – TARP – which he engineered late in 2008. …
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent, is Bernanke’s chief antagonist in the Senate and was also the most vocal TARP opponent among the Democratic caucus.
Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have also indicated they will vote against him. Merkley was the lone Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee to oppose Bernanke’s nomination when the panel voted in December.
Sens. Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer made their announcements this morning.
Who would get the nod if Bernanke fails? Marc Ambinder suggested Larry Summers on his Twitter feed. What about Tim Geithner, the former NY Fed chief?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Person for a year?
the_nile on January 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Obama is the kiss of death…
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM
I’m going to treat you like a lady, no act like one! Okay, it’s o/t but I’ve been dying to say that all day.
RightWinged on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
clearing the deck for Geitner. yay us!
gatorboy on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
President Barack Hussein Obama should appoint himself.
Bishop on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I don’t want this week to end.
amerpundit on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Literally ROFL
Vashta.Nerada on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Bernie Madoff.
the_nile on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
It’s fun to watch the left consume each other.
Disturb the Universe on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I hope he campaigns for every democrat this year..
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Time Magazine: a finger on the pulse of, well, something, but certainly not current affairs.
Cicero43 on January 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Nobody has floated Willie Sutton yet?
Vashta.Nerada on January 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM
We could do far worse than Larry Summers.
So, we probably will.
Techie on January 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Abolish the Fed.
Akzed on January 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM
And Obama is thinking, “This has been the looooongest week”
ladyingray on January 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Wow, add this to the growing list that will come to be known as the Obama Debacle.
Geochelone on January 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM
I think a lot of this acrimony towards Bernanke on the Dems side is political posturing ahead of elections. Name me one viable candidate for Bernanke’s position who would have done things dramatically different?
furytrader on January 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM
the Brown Mass vote is being
heard, half-heard in the stillness
between two waves of the sea
( for you trolls, the two waves are the recent and upcoming elections; the stillness is the large blank space in Obama’s and the Democrats’ brains; the poet is Tom Stearns )
Janos Hunyadi on January 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM
If you (and Obama) think 2010 is being ‘difficult’, just wait and see after Nov. 2010.
Sir Napsalot on January 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Congressional Dems really need to pace themselves, lest they run out of scapegoats to throw under the bus prior to November.
Christien on January 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Rather than keeping Bernanke out of the Chairmanship, I’d reather see a change in the Federal Reserve system that stops holding a large place for labor representation, which is one of the most insane ideas I had ever encountered in my life, and rather have no one from labor ever anywhere near the Fed or any of its regional boards.
neurosculptor on January 22, 2010 at 1:03 PM
I’m no Bernake fan, but once again, we have TIME running propaganda for the White House.
THERE IS VOTER ANGER AT POLITICIANS CURRENTLY IN POWER – THAT IS, THE DEMOCRATS.
And it’s not because they aren’t being communist enough. It’s because we know that they caused just as much of the problem, if not more, that we’re in right now. IN addition, they’re appointing people like Barney Frank – who had more to do with the causing the current dire straits than Bernake – in charge of “fixing it.”
This isn’t “all Wall Street’s fault.” The political class, and in particular, the “progressives” who have spent their careers churning out idiotic, anti-growth policies are as much to blame as anyone else. AND THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AS WELL.
Good Lt on January 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM
President Obama should just issue Royal Decrees.
Sir Napsalot on January 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Either that or buy a fleet of bus’s..
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM
I pray that’s true. The man has been, is, and always will be, an unmitigated disaster.
I called both Kyl and McCain today and asked they both vote “nay” on Zimbabwe Ben‘s reconfirmation. Everyone, please do the same with your Senators.
Rae on January 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Obama is a real go-getter. /sarc
search4truth on January 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM
And Obama is thinking, “I picked the wrong week to quit inhaling….”
Sir Napsalot on January 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Does Michelle Obama have any brothers or sisters? Maybe he can appoint one of them.
SouthernGent on January 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Person of LAST year.
maverick muse on January 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM
This has got to be one of the worst political weeks for a President since Nixon’s resignation…..
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM
All because of one teeny tiny special election…Now isn’t that special.
SHARPTOOTH on January 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM
End the Fed!
moonbatkiller on January 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM
It was Fannie/Freddie who lied about their mortgages, classifying them as Prime when they were really Subprime. The investment banks, then were creating Credit Default Swaps based on what they thought were “prime” loans which were really Subprime.
jp on January 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM
LOL Are you crazy? If they are worried about their base revolting, nominating Tim or Larry would only encourage that. They all hate Tim and most are not too fond of Larry, at least from what I have gathered.
Joe Caps on January 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Charles Ponzi or Cousin Pookie
txag92 on January 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM
I have no confidence that the B+ bench has any more talent than Ben Bernanke…..Not that he’s talented, nor principled. I just have no faith nor trust in subZer0 to proffer any candidate bearing anything resembling scruples or economic sense.
ted c on January 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm!
Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Does Michelle Obama have any brothers or sisters? Maybe he can appoint one of them.
SouthernGent on January 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Racist. /
Joe Caps on January 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Who would get the nod if Bernanke fails? Marc Ambinder suggested Larry Summers on his Twitter feed. What about Tim Geithner, the former NY Fed chief?
Charles Ponzi or Cousin Pookie
txag92 on January 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Or… Ron Paul
txag92 on January 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Back to a continuing comment I make from time to time…
Nearly a year ago, I made a suggestion that the Democrat Party would at least have discussions about not supporting Obama for re-election. The odds were long…to say the least.
Oh…how times have changed. I think, given the news and events of the last week or two, that discussion is a foregone conclusion.
His far-left base is abandoning him, and he’s burned everything to his right. He’s left himself a very small tent in which to read the TOTUS.
Odds on the Peace Prize being recalled? Not as long as you might think.
BobMbx on January 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM
YES!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhaTQseKTQ
Joe Caps on January 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Steve Forbes
fourdeucer on January 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM
How about Alan Greenspan? What’s he doing these days?
When Bernanke was appointed in ’05, I thought he had all the necessary qualifications: “a dark suit, a blue tie, and hands crossed on top of his crotch.” Maybe I was wrong.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM
The White House gardner is probably available for the job but probably does not want it…
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Worse thing that could happen is for Congress to seize Monetary Policy from the Fed(i.e. “end the fed”). COngress screws up MOnetary Policy along with their own policies, like with Fannie/Freddie. Imagine if they have complete control over it.
A Central bank is needed, one that doesn’t have a political mandate from congress to lower unemployement though and instead focus on price stability.
This is a scapegoat ultimately to divert from the catostrophe Congress has caused with their Social Engineering Policies.
jp on January 22, 2010 at 1:12 PM
I nominate Van Jones.
GIVE THEM THE WEALTH! GIVE THEM THE WEALTH!
Joe Caps on January 22, 2010 at 1:12 PM
IDK but if I were him I would spend most of my time hiding from my wife.
Joe Caps on January 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Bernanke doesn’t deserve to be re-appointed.
wildcat84 on January 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM
John Wiley Price or Charles Barron.
Both are first rate Dems.
Track-A-'Crat on January 22, 2010 at 1:14 PM
an idea of how stupid Ron Paul is…a classic on the subject:
Golden-Fetters
or go to youtube and search for Milton Friedman and Gold Standard
jp on January 22, 2010 at 1:14 PM
How about Barney Frank….
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Don’t even say it!
Track-A-'Crat on January 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM
If 2010 is difficult, he’s going to have even bigger problems in 2011.
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Please o’ please let it be Dr. Walter E. Wiliams.
WashJeff on January 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM
All Hail the Lame Duck in Chief.
TN Mom on January 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM
How about…Reverend Wright?
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM
I we put Ron Paul in as FED chair, would that keep his crazy from contaminating everything else?
Or is this one of those times that “What is the worst that could happen?” goes nuts?
Count to 10 on January 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM
easiest way to get that, “End the Fed”
its exactly what would happen. People like Frank and Pelosi and Political Campaigns in general replace a Bernanke and the Fed Governors.
This reality, is why the Founders eventually agreed to a Central bank under Madison.
jp on January 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Bernanke’s bringing the nation together…to oppose his nomination from both sides of the “spectrum”. The consensus is that he’s crooked.
The Dean on January 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM
LOL!
TN Mom on January 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM
How about….Bernie Madoff…after a Presidential pardon of course..
PatriotRider on January 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Unpresidented the lame duck period start at the end of the first year of the presidency…
the_nile on January 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Quack quack barack
faraway on January 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM
If Bernake can’t get the votes, Geithner damn sure can’t get the votes.
uknowmorethanme on January 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM
After that, then search for Ludwig von Mises or F.A. Hayek on gold/alternative currency and make up your own mind. Don’t let me try to persuade you either way.
Plenty of free material at http://mises.org/.
The Dean on January 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Never get tired of hearing that crap.
Yes, your liberal sheep are disgusted, because you’ve been spoon-feeding the brainless dolts their thoughts for decades.
Most Americans are fed up with jackass politicians playing class warfare to cover up their own greed, corruption, and incompetence.
reaganaut on January 22, 2010 at 1:20 PM
If we’re gonna go nut job, just put Nader in there and be done with it. But, if you put Paul in there, for goshsakes keep him away from the Department of Defense.
kingsjester on January 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Out: The American people are disgusted with the greed and recklessness of Wall Street
In: The American people are disgusted with the greed and recklessness of Obama
faraway on January 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Bernanke and his cronies are even scared of a simple audit. That should speak volumes.
The Dean on January 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Since everyone is calling Obama Carter II, maybe the Dems can convince Ted Kennedy to run against Obama as well.
If the dead can vote, surely they can run for office as well.
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM
If I remember right, there was an election somewhere in the NE, the Democratic candidate died several weeks before the election. The populace was told to go ahead and vote for the dead guy, so that the Democratic governor could then pick his replacement.
And they did.
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM
I’ve always been suspicious of using gold and only gold, but it would stabilize things (and prevent government tampering) if our currency was backed by something. What about a portfolio of precious metals? Buy up silver, platinum, etc., and have the currency be redeemable as a set amount of each?
Count to 10 on January 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM
So, Cramer was right. He had no idea.
Jorge Bonilla on January 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Thomas Sowell would also be a good choice.
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Does anyone else find this funny? It is hilarious, in my view.The Obamanation can’t fll positions he is supposed to fill and now Bernacke can’t get 50 votes, screwy nominees dropping like flies and Teddy’s seat goes to a Rep.
I love it. On Drudge an article is linked saying Rahmbo is in hiding. This is a historic president alright. At this rate they will be the first in a long time to have done absolutely nothing because they are too busy spinning.
ORconservative on January 22, 2010 at 1:25 PM
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM
For the first time yesterday I heard a liberal (can’t remember who) on TV say “if Obama runs for re election..”
ORconservative on January 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Bring back Greenspan?
Steve Z on January 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Good one. I’m reading his book right now. He absolutely deconstructs liberals, intellectuals and the intellegentsia. “Intellectuals in Society” is the name of it—great stuff.
ted c on January 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM
In the spirit of African-American bipartisanship, Obama should nominate his former opponent Alan Keyes.
Steve Z on January 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM
If Sanders won’t approve of his “God’s” appointment (and he most definitely won’t!), he’s very dark toast. Sanders is an old school Socialist. Obama is just an upstart.
GoldenEagle4444 on January 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM
There’s no perception about it! They wasted a full year playing around with a health-care overhaul that no one likes and none of them took the time to read, all the while verbally vomiting, “gotta pass this, gotta pass this, gotta pass this, now, now, now!”
ya2daup on January 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM
The problem is that the price of any commodity is always flexible. If the US were to set the price of the dollar at $1000/oz, then whenever the world price went above that mark, foreigners would rush to the treasury to convert their dollars into gold. If it went below, they would try to do the opposite. Additionally, you need to print more money as the GDP expands. If you don’t, you run the risk of deflation. Before you could print more money, the govt would have to somehow acquire an equivalent amount of gold, or whatever precious metal.
Tying the dollar to a precious metal, or even to a basket of precious metals solves one problem at the cost of several new problems.
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM
3 am phone call to White House:
“We’re sorry, the number you have dialed has been temporarily disconnected. Please try your call later. Goodbye.”
BobMbx on January 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM
When you have bunch of senators and a congressmen, who are trying to be re-elected.. the POTUS goes on the back burner.
upinak on January 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Because they’re bound and determined not to do anything that would reduce unemployment through growth in the private sector.
ya2daup on January 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Wasn’t LBJ the last president to voluntarily decide not to run for re-election? Were there any others? (I’ll exclude those who voluntarily stepped down after their second term, prior to FDR.)
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM
He had no idea! He had no idea! He had no idea!
daesleeper on January 22, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Well, how many parties was it that the Obama’s had in one year? 177 or something, hell the guy needs his sleep!
ORconservative on January 22, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Actually Bill Fleckenstein would be a good choice…he’s a contrarian columnist on msn’s moneycentral…
right4life on January 22, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Time failed to even mention Tea Partiers in their Person of the Year issue – how’s that look in light of the Massachusetts Miracle?
PatMac on January 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM
If this happens, make sure you have a ton of $1 bills. A $1 bill would be worth 50 times a $50 bill.
/sarc
BobMbx on January 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM
That would be good also.
A penny saved used to be a penny earned before 1913:
Before the Fed, using your “mattress” to save money was an acceptable, while maybe not the wisest, way to save your money. With the federal reserve act of 1913, Americans are practically forced to invest their money due to inflation.The difficultly with investing is that most people are at a HUGE information deficit to the seller. When huge information deficits exist in free markets, fraud and abuse can flourish.
WashJeff on January 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Say, does anybody have a copy of the Christmas Eve video of the dem senators slapping themselves on the back for passing ObamaCare “in memory of Teddy”?
PatMac on January 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM
MarkTheGreat on January 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM
you are correct. I supposed that would also be historic……….ha. I like that historic idea.
ORconservative on January 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Sander’s has it all wrong. American voters and taxpayers are disgusted with the greed in Washington DC. They have squandered trillions in payouts, favoritism, crony-ism and yes bailouts to banks. We are disgusted with the Sanders and all like him.
richardb on January 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I’m seeing a lot of joking at the expense of Team Obama but I’m not seeing any viable suggestions to replace Bernanke. And this is the biggest problem of the American Right these days: It’s gotten very good at obstructing the Democrats’ agenda, but it’s not terribly productive in offering practical answers to current problems. Which is fine while you are in the minority, but a serious problem if you want to regain the majority and start governing or legislating.
Just something to think about between now and November.
factoid on January 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I think Dr. Walter E. Williams talked on Rush once that he would recommend that a computer program be written that could set the money supply\interest rates based on a few factors (which I cannot remember). I know population was one.
WashJeff on January 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Folks you all need to remember that a certain Senator from CT is retiring. Could Chris Dodd be the Next Fed Chairman?? You all must admit he has plenty of experience in shady deals so he would fit right in with the Obie crew.
Dire Straits on January 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM
The problem I have with with Bernanke is that he claims that the Fed did not cause this latest economic crisis, when it’s pretty obvious that the Fed keeping interest rates low for too long was what caused a big part of our problems. We can’t really have a Fed chief who won’t accept the fact that the Fed screwed up big time, and hasn’t learned anything from the Fed’s mistakes.
eyedoc on January 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »