Wal-Mart and Best Buy squared off against JP Morgan and Citibank yesterday in the US Senate, and the retailers won this round: the Tester amendment to stop the Fed from killing ridiculously high bank charges on debit cards couldn’t withstand a filibuster. This means that instead of charging 44 cents to process a debit transaction, the banks can only charge 7-12 cents, taking a huge bite out of $20 billion in profit. Though this would seem like a no-brainer, it’s telling that a majority (54-45) voted for it, with 12 senators changing votes (including Schumer and Gillibrand) over the last year. This means that other Dodd-Frank provisions, as well as the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are going to be in play in the Senate.
Since Jon Tester led the charge for the banks, maybe it’s worth revisiting this panegyric from Kos editor McJoan a few short years ago:
Jon Tester isn’t really a new kind of Democrat, but he’s the kind of Democrat that many of us, and a majority of Montana voters, can identify with, can respect, and can trust to represent them in Congress. As an individual, I predict Tester will redefine what being a representative means. In that sense, Tester’s victory is a victory for middle-class Americans everywhere.
In a political sense, Tester’s victory means a lot more for Democratic politics, for the grassroots, and for the netroots.[…]
For the Democratic party, this is a powerful new archetype. In his demeanor, in his approach to politics, Tester is the common man, the simple citizen. As a politician, he projects these personal qualities into a message of common sense, the common good, and representation of the little guy. In that, Tester’s political approach shows us how to recapture what Americans have always liked about the Democrats, that it’s the party of the little guy. He’s a unifying figure for us, from the center to the left. Without sacrificing any of the core values that make him a Democrat–he’s pro-choice, pro-civil liberties, and believes in the essential ability of government to improve people’s lives–Tester can appeal to white, middle/working class voter that has been duped by the Republicans into thinking that they represent their concerns better.
What’s more, he negates the standard Republican attack on Democrats because he can’t be attacked for not being a real American with real American values. […] It’s not as a result of any specific position he holds, but rather the totality of the image he presents.[…]
Jon Tester isn’t necessarily a new kind of Democrat, he’s the best of what Democrats have always been.
In 4 years, Kos front-pagers went from wondering if Tester is more God than man, to saying he should be the Blanche Lincoln of 2012. As a Montana local pointed out the last time Tester did something awful, it isn’t Tester who changed. Tester’s facing Denny Rehberg, who probably thinks that getting money from banks is like receiving a benediction from the Pope or a handjob from Ronald Reagan’s ghost. Tester will pay no political price for supporting this amendment, and he’ll probably gain a bunch of campaign contributions. That’s just the political environment we live in, where the choices are usually between mediocre and awful.
Shalimar
I actually am surprised banking lobbyists couldn’t find 60 Senators willing to fuck over their constituents in exchange for campaign contributions. So this is at least one example of where I am too cynical about politics.
arguingwithsignposts
@Shalimar: In a battle between Wal-Mart and the Banksters, I’m rooting for injuries.
Still, something to see the Banksters lose for a change. Not like any of that fee reduction will make it back into the pockets of the consumers.
KyCole
As a former small business owner who was totally screwed over by the credit card processing company, I give a small cheer. But let’s face it. The banks never lose. They’ll just find other ways to get the cash.
Brklyngrl
Another example of this archetype: Jim Webb.
I love it when Democrats reinforce the notion that butch white guys are the realest Americans of all. I’ll still support Tester, because as you say there’re not much choice. And if the totality of his image helps him win in Montana, then great. I want a big tent. But I think Republicans have pretty much cornered the market of identity-based appeals to white men, so I say let’s leave that to them, since it’s their speciality.
Just Some Fuckhead
The choices are lousy and lousier. Mediocre would be a pleasant change.
Suffern ACE
@Just Some Fuckhead: Well, the Today show anchor just let me know that now that Weiner is damaged goods for mayor, Alec Baldwin is considering throwing his hat in the ring. Its great that there is such depth in American public life.
Mike
No, Tester will lose big over this. If there is one consistent fact of American History, it is that farmers, ranchers, and rural states absolutely HATE banks of any sort. The entire 19th century political landscape was fought over the role of banks and the spread of slavery. Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan… all these famous rural politicians were virulently anti-banking.
Yes, I’m sure Rehberg is in Mr. Dimon’s pocket, but that’s not how he’s going to portray himself in the Senate race. He’ll be out there screaming how Montanans should not be tied to a “cross of swipe fees” or whatnot. Tester is going to get hammered hard over this proposal, and his defense takes about 5 minutes to explain (Montana does not allow interstate banking, so the move was supposedly to protect Montana small banks… or something). As you can see, it’s not very persuasive.
There’s a poll out there showing 75% of Montanan’s opposed to Tester’s actions. I have no idea what this guy was thinking when he proposed this lunacy. It’s as toxic to Montanans as the Ryan plan is to the rest of America.
kdaug
@Brklyngrl:
Srsly, sunshine? You think the bible-thumpers own the block?
[“clink, clink”, tapping the knife tip to the glass eye]
Let’s dance.
El Cid
Whenever an election draws more close, in my view a clear contradiction arises.
On the one hand, people are urged to take the most realistic views of Democratic candidates, to a degree. Yet it’s too harmfully negative if this seems to many as either too critical of a candidate’s likely and prior actions given the factual contexts, or if one appears to be realistic with the facts but demonstrating too strong emotions with regard to realistic criticisms. In the latter two cases, then one fits under the “manic progressive” label used here, or other labels outside this bubble and feedback loop vocabulary.
On the other hand, the people who are to work and volunteer for campaigns aren’t too effective at it merely by claiming Republicans are much more terrible but whatever candidate is being supported is good enough though expecting too much out of them is unrealistic. I really think it’s absurd to imagine that as much energy and small donation financing would have favored Obama if as tempered and “non-manic” or unrealistic hopes for what he would do, particularly on anything he would manage to do. Including being clear as you’re asking people to turn out who usually don’t, or to volunteer for neighborhood committees or the like, but openly making them understand that you clearly see that Congress and the Senate are just going to make anything you really hope for out of Obama much more limited. Likewise if you think what would be achieved is important, but not as much as you think would really be the best, for many it’s a bit harder to fervently advocate for those policies the candidate is claiming to support — all the while attempting to temper the likelihood that even those policies would be achieved.
That’s what I’ve seen constantly, and what I’ve encountered over and over. A hell of a lot of people don’t turn out to vote or make donations or volunteer for campaigns simply to oppose Republicans. But the people who have seemed most successful and convincing in campaign work, or the most strongly convinced in voting, are those who have a positive belief in the candidate which is too optimistic given prior and more likely realities.
I dunno. Maybe everyone here has been able to successfully cross those divides, it’s not a problem, they’re not in any way manically over the top, they have exactly the correct limited hope for what a candidate will likely do, aim for, or have success in, yet are extremely successful at organizing and campaign work and fundraising and helping turnout.
It hasn’t been what I’ve seen, but maybe I just wasn’t around the sorts of people who can comment here.
agrippa
yes, the choices are between mediocre and awful.
Those two are what is possible nowadays.
Chris
I’m at a loss when people say someone “negates” the standard Republican attacks on Democrats, just because he doesn’t conform to the Republican stereotype of what Dems are like.
What Democrat ever does? We ran a Vietnam war hero who was injured twice in front-line combat, while Bush was using his rich boy connections to dodge the same war. That should have negated the “unpatriotic” rhetoric for ever, but instead, you got the swift-boaters. Then we elected a guy who passed a stimulus centered on tax cuts and a health care reform plan mostly taken from the GOP’s own ideas of the previous decade. It should have negated the “tax and spend” and “left wing extremist” images, but instead, you got the teatardbaggers.
It’s like those Republicans who watch The West Wing and say “oh, if Democrats were really like Bartlett, I’d vote for them!” No, if Democrats were really like Bartlett, you’d never know about it: you’d be too busy listening to Fox’s latest report about how Bartlett wants to kill your grandmother, secretly goes to mosques on Friday, or was really born in Canada. The idea that a Democrat can out-aw-shucks-I’m-a-Real-American-doncha-know! the GOP by running folksier or tougher or more overtly religious candidates is ridiculous.
El Cid
@Suffern ACE: A good Glen Garry Glen Ross style speech would be a new entertaining factor in a campaign.
kay
@Brklyngrl:
As long as we understand that big tent means something. It means that the people who comprise whatever this year’s version of the the expanded base is will shape the entity and organization known as “the Democrat Party” as much as the entity or organization known as “the Democratic Party” will shape them.
If they don’t shape it, they aren’t really in it. If they don’t shape it, we’re asking them to join a coalition but we aren’t willing to let them have any real role in it. And people aren’t like that. They aren’t going to do it.
I have so much trouble with this whole concept of a one-way “big tent” where the people we invite in mysteriously don’t change the organization or alliance they join. Of course they change it. They change it just by joining. If we want Montana Tester Democrats (whatever that might be), and they’re in, then they comprise part of the Party. There is no Democratic Party, independent of the people in it. That’s an idea, not an organization.
I see it in Republican circles too. People here will tell me “he’s not a real Republican”. That’s sort of interesting, in the abstract, what might comprise the elements of a “real Republican” but the Republican Party actually exists, and the members define it as much as it defines them.
I think it’s a sort of hubris to say “we want those people from Montana, but we don’t want them to shape this organization”. That isn’t going to work. Joan here doesn’t even consider that Tester is just as likely to pull “Democrats” Right as it is that “Democrats” pull him Left.
WereBear
The way I see it working is activating the same circuits we use to fall in love.
At first, the sky’s the limit! This is motivational.
After the honeymoon period, we are supposed to adjust our sights; then we find out Our Darling leaves a snail trail of toothpaste on the sink or has a fondness for wrapping leftovers in aluminum foil or whatever.
Doesn’t mean we don’t love. Doesn’t mean life isn’t better with them than without them.
Hal
Am I the only one who had to Google Panegyric?
Maude
@kay:
Put Rush in the big tent and there won’t be room for anyone else.
WyldPirate
@kay:
The big tent means NOTHING. The only thing that has meaning in politics any longer is BIG MONEY…not the kind of chump change $20 here and $20 there Obama conned out of people.
As someone said up above, we face the choice between “mediocre and awful”. Both the mediocre and the awful are going top fuck over those that have bought them.
Nothing will change what is happening now except collapse/revolution and rebuilding the ash heap left behind after an indeterminate period of neo-feudalism.
lol
It’s also funny that it was all well and fine for Tester to be a moderate Democrat on all sorts of issues but it only became a betrayal when Markos’ pet issue was on the line.
lol
@WyldPirate:
It’s funny because that’s what Randians believe too. And Marxists and teabaggers and etc etc.
mds
@Mike:
Hmm, how did Denny Rehberg vote on Dodd-Frank in the House? Oh, right, he voted against it, defended the vote at townhalls, and is on the record attacking Baucus and Tester for voting for it. Meanwhile, Tester simply says, “I’d rather protect your hometown bank than Wal-Mart.”
No, I don’t actually like the amendment. If he really wanted to help Montana’s local banks and credit unions, he needed to limit who it applied to. Perhaps, though that was technically infeasible; it certainly wouldn’t have gotten as much support as it did, especially from Wall Street’s fucktoy Schumer. But it’s not automatically a “stick a fork in him” moment for Tester. Nor am I eager to have David Sirota primary him from the left.
kay
@Maude:
I don’t remember exactly, but there was that sort of fad in national political circles a while back where Democrats and liberals were told to appeal to religious folks. “Natural constituency, blah, blah”. I didn’t have any problem with it, but I did realize that if we’re appealing to rational Left-leaning religious people the organization will then be influenced by them.
They did that, and some left-leaning religious folks became active, and then it was “where did all these religious ideas come from, we’re strict church-state division people!”
Hmmm. It’s a mystery, how that happened :)
rikryah
if you choose wrong, then don’t be surprised if it comes back to bite you in the ass. WHEN Tester gets hammered for this – he did it to himself.
TheStone
But Tester has a crewcut! He must be common – I mean, I hear Aaron Copland in my head every time I see him on TV!
Scott P.
It’s democracy. Those are always the choices.
burnspbesq
Tester’s stated position on this issue makes perfect sense. The fact that you or I may not agree with it doesn’t change that fact.
It is theoretically possible that his stated position is simply a “HEADFAKE!”, However, a quick look at opensecrets doesn’t appear to provide any support for that hypothesis. It does not appear that banks provide major financial support to his campaigns.
Librarian
That’s the main reason I hate DK: the starry-eyed hero worship of whoever the liberal hero du jour is, whether it was Obama himself, Howard Dean, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren, Tester, Webb, Bernie Sanders, Olbermann, Maddow, etc. etc., until they say or do something that causes anquished accusations of betrayal, followed by calls to primary them. It’s like the people there never learn.
TrevorB
Montanan here, I think most people in montana will be pulling there heads out of their asses this next election. We went full bore tea party in 2010 with disastrous results. Rehberg has seriously embraced tea partism and we have gotten nothing from him. I would be very surprised to see tester lose the next election, but we all know money buys elections and rehberg has out of state money in spades
Phil Perspective
@mds: Sirota lives in Denver these days. Just lets say he isn’t moving any time soon.
cmorenc
The ANSWER to why so many Democratic Senators like Tester, seen when first elected as on the side of good reps for ordinary people, wind up after two or three years on the crass, corporatist side of so many votes…
IT’S THE MATH, STUPID. Figure out how many dollars, per day, every day (weekends and holidays included) sustained over a senator’s entire six-year term it takes to raise each $1 million needed for their next reelection campaign. It’s $457.00 …If the campaign is projected to cost $5 million (cheap nowdays)…that’s $2285 per day, every day, over six years. $10 million, that’s $$4570 per day, every day, over six years.
The wonder is that we have ANY senators who can survive uncorrupted by this math, at least any who plan to attempt reelection.
mds
@TrevorB:
Then again, so did
MontgomeryConrad Burns, and didn’t the existence of his wheelbarrows full of out-of-state corporate funding actually get used against him?kindness
WRT Tester and the other blue dogs that DKos supported in 2008, well, I don’t think they thought Tester would be their best friend. They knew he and the others were more conservative than they (and I) are. For myself, I just didn’t think Tester would stick me in the eye with a sharp stick so many times. So in that respect, I don’t think the DKos people, or myself are being hypocritical by changing our thoughts on people we had hoped would work with us to change the political dynamic. No, it was many of Tester & the other blue dogs choices to instead of working with Democrats to fuck them over and to them, they thought it was a win-win situation that would make their voters back home like them even more.
Screw that noise. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Am I better off now that Blanche Lincoln isn’t in the Senate? Sadly, yes I am. Because I never got her (or Tester’s et al) votes on issues that truly define what it is to be a Democrat and because you had this ‘influential’ Democrat calling other Democrats socialists, the media was able to play it out that it was Democrats that were the problem. I no longer have that problem with Blanche Lincoln. Soon I won’t have that problem with Senator Ben Nelson.
There is a way to disagree with your own and be OK. These people didn’t play by those rules so screw them. I don’t feel I’m biting off my nose to spite my face wrt these blue dogs.
kindness
Awaiting moderation?
What are the rules regarding what get’s moderated and what bypasses the filter? Are there specific curse words I should not use?
drkrick
As long as the amount of money needed to conduct a competitive campaign is as high as it is, and until a Constitutional amendment is passes to reverse the campaign finance precedents being established by the Roberts court (i.e., never), the system is not going to permit members of Congress to do business via bribery, it’s going to require them to do so.
Since that system works out to a very nice advantage for the moneyed 1%, they will work very hard to make sure it stays in place. I’m open to suggestions on how to overcome that, but the playing field may be tilted just a little to much to pull it off. If that’s true, the choice will be between flaming assholes and smoldering assholes for the foreseeable future.
Luthe
Does this mean the swipe fee battle is over? Because there was an article a while back talking about how swipe fees were THE battle on the Hill, distracting our fine elected officials from approving Obama’s nominees and raising the debt ceiling. Perhaps now progress will be made. /Eeyore
drkrick
@kindness:
That may be true up until the point that the loss of the Lincolns and the Nelsons loses you control of the leadership. After that, no. The leadership vote is the most important of the session by far, even if they’re wrong on every other one from there on, because control of leadership and committees means control of the agenda. The outcome of a Dem-controlled Senate, even one limited by the wrongheadedness of the Lincolns and Nelsons, is a heck of a lot different than the outcome of a GOP-controlled one, and leaves someone interested in reasonable governance a lot better off.
WereBear
The problem is that most voters don’t get how crucial it is. If someone would make a great big noisy fuss about it, that could help.
Die, traditional media, die! Because as long as they are owned by the 1%, we are screwed.
Lol
I’ll be blunt: Tester had a more progressive record than Feingold no matter whether you looked National Journal or Progressive Punch. Feingold’s record last session was terrible.
It’s amazing how Feingold’s run at pandering to Teabaggers and playing up his independence in 09-10 merited so little notice in the Netroots.
Bill Murray
@kindness:
the word following this contains a prescription drug name within it. If you write it with a replacement for one of the letters in the drug name it works
or shorter me: soc1alist
Rob Kailey
Mike,
You are incorrect on a bunch of levels. You blithely assume irrational ignorance where the their isn’t any. Rural folk may “hate banks”, but they also know the difference between local banks, credit unions and Wells Fargo. They (we) have also come to expect many of the same consumer services from our small financial institutions that one can get from the big guys (free checking, free debit card, etc.) Many of those small institutions are exempt from the fee cap, but lose competitiveness if they charge retailers higher percentage for issued cards than the large banks are allowed. So, the failure of the Tester amendment sets up a conflict between small financial institutions and small retailers.
Further, as has already been noted upthread, the large institutions can shift fee structures to recoup the loss of income. Small banks and credit unions can’t. All they can realistically do is raise fees or cancel consumer services. So, once again, they become uncompetitive with Wells Fargo et al for the very client base that keeps their doors open.
This message seems far more lost on the jaded group of online progressives than it is on us simple rural state folks.
I haven’t a clue where you pulled out your predictions concerning Dennis Rehberg’s talking points, but it’s pretty clear that you should research the race and the candidates a whole lot more before pontificating about it.
Finally:
The “poll” you mention was commissioned by the National Retail Federation. As a respondent, I can tell you flat out that it was a push poll. The questions were grossly loaded to imply that big banks are screwing over Mom and Pop grocery stores. I’d put one helluva lot less stock in that poll than I will the reaction after ranchers and farmers start hearing from their first-name-basis friends at the credit union that there will be no more free checking.
socraticsilence
Seriously, as a Montanan Jon has been and will continue to be a good Senator with an actual progressive record this bill is a mixed bag (major banks don’t exactly fun Tester so i’m inclined to give his explanation credibility) and the two other votes the online left hammers him on are explicable: though I disagree in principle on the DREAM act- it wasn’t a break from his previous position on immigration; as for Wolves, well he, Baucus and even Rehberg are right and have the backing of most informed parties but are opposed by out of state interests with no real understanding of the facts on the ground.
mds
So, since Rehberg has always opposed this provision, along with the rest of bank-punishing Dodd-Frank, he’s got a real leg up on Tester, who apparently should have voted against the whole thing rather than fail at fixing it later via amendment? Because even this jaded online progressive has noticed that Rehberg’s talking point is Tester’s “hypocrisy.”
kindness
@Bill Murray: Thanks. I’ll remember that.
Rob Kailey
mds, so far the Rehberg campaign has been remarkably silent about Tester’s amendment attempt. I expect Iverson (Denny’s mini-me) to remain that way concerning this issue, for a bunch of reasons
1) The R-camp has already seen some success with letting the left hammer Tester. Why should they do what others will do for them?
2) The R-camp will avoid pointing out that they were against banking reform completely, except to the most friendly of audiences, the so-called ‘free market’ faithful. Hitting Jon with the a supposed flip on this issue puts them in the position of championing banks far more than Tester did. That won’t play well with independent voters.
3) Ask yourself the question I pretty much guarantee the R-camp is asking. What if Jon and Ben Bernanke are *right* about the effect this price fixing will have on smaller rural financial institutions?
Mike Kay (True Grit)
BWHWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA
Welcome aboard mistermix.
I’ve been point out how silly the blogging elite has been for years. How the “very serious”, well read, even high educated literati will overlook horrid voting records if you just give them some lip service and a pat on their heads.
Edwards, Weiner, a number of others, and now… I’m Shocked!, I’m Shocked!…. Tester.
They billed themselves as different. Unlike the Village, they wouldn’t put style over substance. And yet the new media didn’t fall far from the old media tree.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@Lol: Are you really surprised by that? Once you’re in the club, you can get away with anything. You can do a patently racist Minstrel Man caricature and join hands with Grover Norquist and not only will no peer will issue a rebuke, but they’ll just keep throwing parties for her.
Same thing for Feingold. Once he entered the club, he could get away with anything: voting for John Roberts, voting for John Ashcroft, refusing to sign the public option petition, voting against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Can you imagine the outcry if a non member of the club did that.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
You know mistermix, by exposing McJoan and DKos, you’re not going to get any invitations to the annual blogosphere prom.
itsbenj
Must every poster here be a serial exaggerator? It’s not every front pager at DKos, it’s Kos himself. And guess what? He’s a real, live person who emigrated to the United States. Wasn’t born here. Came here for a better life outside of war-torn homeland. And when Dems pledge to help others like him and then throw that pledge out the window like a used snotrag, guess what? It makes him angry. Are y’all really this dumb? Or are you just grossly insensitive? Take your pick.