Matthew Yglesias: The Reverse Lieberman Maneover

« A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Social Security | Main | Stand With Dogmatic Leftism! »

The Reverse Lieberman Maneover

Evan Bayh, for whom I suppose I'm now committed to being an apologist, is coming in for some criticism for his "yes" vote on the bankruptcy bill, following on the heels of his praiseworthy "no" vote on the cloture motions. While I'll certainly agree that this isn't ideal behavior, voting with the public interest when it counts and with the corporate paymasters on the unimportant vote is a big improvement over doing the opposite. Some might call it cunning.

March 14, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83458108069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Reverse Lieberman Maneover:

» Bayh, Yglesias, and Vizzini from Paperwight's Fair Shot
This morning, I read this at Big Media Matt's personal shop:Evan Bayh, for whom I suppose I'm now committed to being an apologist, is coming in for some criticism for his [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 14, 2005 11:28:09 AM

Comments

Actually, I would call it pathetic. The corporate masters are smart enough to see he voted against them when it counted so why vote for them the second time around?

Posted by: Dan the Man | Mar 14, 2005 1:23:54 AM

Yep. I always love when Senators "vote for it before they vote against it". Or vice versa. Makes it so easy to ridicule their lack of consistency.

Posted by: Al | Mar 14, 2005 1:23:57 AM

Cunning -- or courageous?

Posted by: Martin | Mar 14, 2005 1:36:48 AM

I've been trying to figure out why anyone would ever do this sort of thing. I can understand two reasons voting for cloture while not voting for final passage (the Lieberman maneuver. (1) You want to get the other side on the record, (2) you're generally not a fan of filibusters except in the most dire of circumstances, and the bill doesn't feel that dire to you.

The only half-rational explanation I can come up for the Bayh maneuver is that you want to rack up a few "votes with GOP" votes or something.

Also, it's "maneuver". There is an alternate spelling that involves an 'o' somehow, but it's not "maneover".

Posted by: Nick Beaudrot | Mar 14, 2005 2:27:18 AM

Here's the correct link to the article.

Posted by: poputonian | Mar 14, 2005 6:48:12 AM

If the bankruptcy bill is unimportant, why did you bother to post on it twice and condemn it?

Posted by: Deuce | Mar 14, 2005 7:05:59 AM

I've been trying to figure out why anyone would ever do this sort of thing. I can understand two reasons voting for cloture while not voting for final passage (the Lieberman maneuver.

In general, it's not a hard move to rationalize--vote against cloture because you think the bill should still be improved, vote for passage because, when it comes down to it, you think it's better than nothing.

I'm not saying Bayh's votes on the bankruptcy bill were not based on political calculation--just that it's not that hard to construct a reasonable 'cover story'.

Posted by: mw | Mar 14, 2005 8:33:05 AM

I have no strong feelings about Evan Bayh, but the bankruptcy bill will have an immediate negative effect on many poorer Americans. Cunning or craven?

But this may be the main difference between the liberals and the conservatives: the conservatives, in their current iteration have no do or die issue except abortion. And that's their problem. From a partisan standpoint, they should take a page out of Rove's playbook and run right at the conservatives on that one: Run right at them. Call their bluff and vote for an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution. The states would never ratify it, and legislatures would flip Democratic on the threat.

Deficits? Nation-building? Growth in government? Assertion of federal power over the states? Being anti-abortion is the only sine qua non of being a national Republican candidate today.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 14, 2005 9:00:58 AM

Matt's wonky, beltway endorsement is a sure sign Bayh has no shot in the hinterlands.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 14, 2005 9:01:49 AM

"Maneover" -- is what a lioness calls getting her hair done?

(ducks)

Posted by: praktike | Mar 14, 2005 9:31:50 AM

Of course, there's always the possibility that Bayh saw which way the wind was blowing on cloture (that is, he realized cloture would pass) and voted no as a CYA maneuver. I'm still very, very wary of the guy. If you look at who's been the recipient of contributions this cycle from the financial industry, only Carper has received more among Democrats.

Posted by: BW | Mar 14, 2005 9:35:20 AM

Call me perplexed. Yes, I understand why Lieberman tried to cover his ass. But I have a hard time believing that lending lobbies are fooled by Bayh's nonsense.

Someone suggested that this was an effort to get a GOP vote on the record to pump up his moderate creds. If that is true, then I have to question Bayh's political IQ. People don't vote for candidates with a certain political rating. They vote for candidates that appear consistant. You have to be a fool at this point to expose yourself to a "you voted against it before you voted for it" moment on a major issue.

Posted by: space | Mar 14, 2005 9:49:13 AM

mw: good point. there's another good reason. Cool.

Posted by: Nick Beaudrot | Mar 14, 2005 10:38:16 AM

Even aside from the bill itself, this reverse Lieberman nonsense tells me that the Democratic Party is a goner. It's only months since Kerry's defeat, and you can construct a very strong case that voting for something after you vote against it is a sure-fire way to lose. To independents, it only confirms one of the worst stereotypes about the Dems. To card-carrying Dems (like I was), it's demoralizing as hell: The party can't even sell out in a tactically shrewd manner.

Oh, and no comment about unprincipled idiocy is complete without a nod to the junior senator from New York. Hillary deserves a special profile in courage, for being the only senator to not cast a vote on bankruptcy 'reform' at all.

Nope, better to suck it up, steel oneself for a good decade of political defeats, and work on a viable center / left third party.

Posted by: sglover | Mar 14, 2005 10:53:25 AM

Here you go, sglover:

http://www.modparty.net/majority.php

Posted by: praktike | Mar 14, 2005 11:56:39 AM

Thanks, praktike! But what are your thoughts about the future of the Democratic Party?

Posted by: sglover | Mar 14, 2005 12:04:30 PM

Nothing cunning about it.

Why could this not have gotten a straight party-line vote?

This was a very sad day for the democrats.

The worst part is that the most politically active liberal non-professionals - i.e. the left blogging community is grasping to understand what happened.

We can make something up, but what was on Bayh's or Lieberman's minds?

How much money did the votes cost? Was it for money? It doesn't seem like anyone knows for sure.

Posted by: Jenny Colvin | Mar 14, 2005 12:14:32 PM

Evan Bayh is damaged goods, he will never run. We should stop focusing on him now.

Posted by: SAO | Mar 14, 2005 12:41:24 PM

But are a lot of credit card industries doing business in Indiana? I only see this as a move to show the business world in general he's not overtly hostile. If that's what he wanted to do, I am not sure why, since I doubt it feels he's one step below Dennis Kucinich. If he's indeed running for president, it'd make much more sense, in my view, to please the base. If he knew the bill was going to pass, he should have voted "no" to please the base.

Am I missing something here?

Posted by: Brian | Mar 14, 2005 2:17:59 PM

Here's the official Senate vote tally, for those who want to see how their own solons did.

Posted by: sglover | Mar 14, 2005 2:34:00 PM

What was so important about the cloture vote? It passed with 9 votes to spare. On the other hand with a switch of 4 votes the abortion amendment would have passed which would probably have killed the bill (as it did in previous years). So that was the key vote and Lieberman voted for the abortion amendment. If you are going give Bayh a pass for voting for the final bill because it didn't matter you should give Lieberman a pass also since the cloture vote didn't really matter either.

As for Mrs. Clinton there is nothing wrong with her missing the final vote (which was not close) as long as she announced which way she would have voted. If she didn't then her absence can be criticized.

Posted by: James B. Shearer | Mar 14, 2005 3:07:17 PM

I would like members of my (former) party to make a goddam explicit stand on bedrock issues. Especially at a time when everyone acknowledges that the Dems' biggest problem is their amorphous squishiness. The bankruptcy measure was surely a bedrock issue. Hell, even David Broder, nobody's fire eater, noted what a wretched piece of cash & carry legislations this 'reform' is.

Posted by: sglover | Mar 14, 2005 3:15:01 PM

Sglover, actually it is not hard to discover that Senator Clinton did take an explicit stand on the bill. Her bottom line:

Because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, I will not be present when the Senate votes on final passage of this bill today. But were I able to be here, I would vote no, because this bill is clearly not in the best interests of the American people.

Posted by: James B. Shearer | Mar 14, 2005 5:43:37 PM

Sglover, actually it is not hard to discover that Senator Clinton did take an explicit stand on the bill.

OK. Thanks. Stupid of me. Apologies to Senator Clinton.

Posted by: sglover | Mar 14, 2005 5:50:41 PM

"Evan Bayh is damaged goods, he will never run. We should stop focusing on him now."

Bayh is quite likely to run. He has no hope of winning, but that's not why he's running.

Matt likes him because he's the realist foreign policy candidate, so there will likely continue to be talk of him on this blog.

Posted by: Petey | Mar 14, 2005 6:12:43 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.