Geithner Confirmed With 30 GOPers, 3 Dems, and Sanders Voting No
President Obama has a new Treasury Secretary -- but only just barely.
Tim Geithner was just approved by the Senate, 60-34, with 30 members of the 41-strong Republican conference voting no. That margin suggests that a successful filibuster was within reach for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), although GOPers ultimately did not attempt to slow down the confirmation. Even more interestingly, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) opposed Geithner, joining three liberal Democrats: Tom Harkin (IA), Russ Feingold (WI), and Robert Byrd (WV).
The Treasury nomination ran into political trouble earlier this month after Geithner admitted an initial failure to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes earlier this decade.
It remains to be seen whether the level of Republican resistance to Geithner will spark more hand-wringing over the Obama administration's level of bipartisanship, but one thing's for sure: Were it not for the recession presently plaguing the nation, Geithner would have had a much higher hill to climb.
Josh
Matt
Eric
60-34 is just barely? Oh, give me a break. The dems and sanders that voted no were just trying to act independent. If it was close, I bet they would have voted yes. They were making a "statement." 60 to 34 is not even close, let alone "just barely."
January 26, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Just barely"? What is this? Politico?
January 26, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOP is giving themselves an attack point come 2010 and 2012, and I expect the same with the Stimulus Package. If it goes as Obama plans then the GOP would be in for a hard election cycle even if they voted for it. This way if it goes poorly, or is slower than initially hoped they can point and say "We told you it was a bad idea".
The Dems Senate advantage almost is a disadvantage here because the GOP don't have to support or own any part of the decisions this way.
The Obama Administration should have two stimulus packages ready, one hoping for bi-partisan support and the other more progressive package to put forth if the GOP wants to play games. If it's going to pass with 60 votes no matter what's contained in it, might as well please your base with it.
January 26, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally disagree. So what if the gop buffoons want to play games. You want to play to the american people and if it looks like you are just playing to your "base," there goes the next election. You want to make it look like you are asking for their cooperation for the american people and then they give you the old FU and you say, gee they don't care about the american people and don't represent their interests. You don't just want to play to your base. See where that got the gop bozos? Not in a million years.
January 26, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The point of being bipartisan is not to appeal to the Republican elected officials, but to the people who voted for them. Last I checked, they're still American citizens and they have as much right to expect the government to listen to them as anyone.
January 26, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this sentiment 100%. The reason Bush was a failure--okay, not the only, but a significant reason Bush was a failure--was because he was a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy. 'Bipartisanship" under Bush meant we will do what we want, and while we would like to have your vote, if you don't want to go along with our agenda, then--how did Cheney put it?--go fuck yourself.
I am tired of that. But I am also not convinced progressive Democrats have all the answers. I am not willing to shut out 40% of the people at the table just because they are Republicans. We need good ideas, and we need them from any quarter.
Obama is not the kind of guy to accept dumb ideas, but I think where his patience truly ends is where politicians try and play games with politics in the face of a real crisis or issue. I think he meant it when he said it is time to put away childish things, and I think the Boehner-Cornyn Just-Say-No strategy is going to get them nowhere. It will get them nowhere with the American people, and it will certainly get them nowhere with the White House.
Call me a fool, call me sentimental, call me a dreamer. But it's been a week. I am not ready to scream failure yet.
January 26, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree, 1000%. If we want anything to get done in this disaster, we need everyone on board. I have totally witnessed the country go gradually down the tubes over the last 40 years and if we are going to pull ourselves out of this, we all have to do it together regardless of label and the time is NOW!
January 26, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really want that 40% "on board" if you can only persuade them to support you by watering your policies down to the point where they don't satisfy their original purpose, and instead satisfy your opponents' political goals?
Republicans do not negotiate in good faith. They are to a person congenital liars, and would rather plunge this country into another depression than give a significant political victory to the Democrats.
Explain to me how you get people who think like this "on board?"
January 27, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Jonze, you could find something scary in a kitten.
January 26, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
...is it de-clawed?
January 27, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
[citation needed]
January 26, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other point, I don't think that a successful filibuster was ever a possibility. Again, alot of the no votes were playing politics. If they were asked about a filibuster, I am sure they said fuggetaboutit. That would have been political suicide in the face of the economic meltdown and a president with a 70% approval rating over an issue of unpaid taxes?????? That is not in the realm of reality.
January 26, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
60-34 is just barely? 25% of the republican caucus voted in the affirmative, so i can see why the article ends with speculation about "hand-wringing" over a lack of "bipartisanship."
TPM's game has been slipping recently.
January 26, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss Greg.
January 26, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "barley" passed drivel is as lame as Greg's "insights" and analysis during the primary.
January 26, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with you there. But I think Greg got a lot better during the general while Eric was still pretty disappointing.
January 26, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
BARELY....really is this place becoming like HACTASTIC Politico
January 26, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
so what's the consensus here?
that the lede shoulda been 'geithner wins confirmation by overwhelming majority - but economic crisis not even a factor'??
you guys don't miss greg, you miss the bush administration. without bush, you don't where to direct your ire.
60-34 is the slimmest margin of confirmation for a tres sec since WWII. that qualifies as just barely. and comes most certainly IN SPITE OF the economic crisis, filibuster or not. no citation needed to understand that without the financial crisis the margin would have been even slimmer and the filibuster would have stayed on the table (to borrow a phrase from recent history).
January 26, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? I take it that you have a basis for that claim.
By the way, the headline should not have been an overwhelming majority either. It is what it is. He was confirmed and it wasn't "slim or a filibuster issue" in any event. 60-34 is not a barely confirmed issue. 51 to 49 would be a barely confirmed issue.
January 26, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"60-34 is the slimmest margin of confirmation for a tres sec since WWII. that qualifies as just barely."
Absolute nonsense. If a bill passes with 55 votes, does that mean it didn't actually pass? Fact is, we were not in a filibuster situation, so it's absurd to apply this vote to such a situation.
January 26, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So which TPM writer is using this crappy pseudonym?
I'll put five bucks on Cooper.
January 26, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
i've been posting here for at least four years. 'fka' = 'formerly known as' since i couldn't recover my username in the redesign.
January 27, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolute drivel.
Here's the NYT's lede:
The notion that there was any danger whatsoever that McConnell could have mounted a successful filibuster on this vote is patent "we need conflict to report" drama queen nonsense of the kind I usually associate with the cable asshats and Politico.
How do I know that? How can I be so certain?
BECAUSE IF McCONNELL COULD HAVE PULLED OFF A FILIBUSTER, HE WOULD HAVE FUCKING DONE IT!!!!
If anyone thinks McConnell was stayed from the attempt because he gives a dead rat's maggot-ridden ass about the economy, the general welfare, his suffering constituients, or anything except his own wrinkled old ass and his party's narrow partisan interest, they haven't been paying attention to the last five years. Defeating this nomination would have been like a month's worth of FREE Viagra for his whole limp, impotent caucus and the ultimate bitchslap in the petty gamesmanship that Republicans still confuse with politics.
The idea that any of the three Dems and the one whatever the hell Sanders is who cast protest votes because he wasn't liberal enough would have lined up with the Republicans--and against a president with a 68% approval rating--for a filibuster is ludicris. Plus, three more Dems, Wyden, Kennedy and Brown, didn't vote. With the exception of Teddy, that's a pretty good signal that they didn't like the nomination but weren't willing to moon the president on it and thus could be pulled in in a pinch.
And speaking of handwringing over bi-partisanship, isn't the fact that McConnell couldn't hold ten members of his own caucus on a vote that had the potential to vastly boost it's clout if only they were willing enough to play hardball even a teensy bit worthy of analysis?
January 26, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who were the eleven Republicans who voted for confirmation?
January 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
corker
cornyn
crapo
ensign
graham
gregg
hatch
voinivich
snowe
shelby
bond did not vote
January 26, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cornyn?
January 26, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go figure.
January 26, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was in the Senate (fat chance), the only reason that I would have voted for him would be to not embarrass Obama. On balance, I'm underwhelmed by the selection of Mr. Geithner.
January 26, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure knowing that will keep Barack up tossing and turning all night.
January 26, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny. By the way, I am more distressed over the clintons being involved in the obama administration than geitner, big time. If anybody can screw things up, its the clintons.
January 26, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, who wouldn't be concerned about the influence of the most successful Democratic POTUS since FDR.
Jeez...
January 26, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you're so sure, tell him I'm sorry.
January 26, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I apologize. That was totally gratuitious. You're entitled to your opinion.
January 26, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem.
I'm just concerned that his personal tax issues will provide an ongoing target for the Repugs that could prove to be a distraction. I hope I'm wrong.
January 26, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Am I seriously in a comment parlor where there are claws out for Elana Schor? Saying she's politico II and hactastic? Are you kidding me?
She got Feinstein on the whole Panetta thing. Her reporting has been great. Politico II? Christ on a crutch.
Everyone has their hair on fire over the littlest things. You people....
January 26, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's embarrassing to read the piling on here. over the years the quality of the commenting has declined much more than the quality of the reporting. not coincidentally, it's most noticeable in the deluge of comments critical of the reporting.
oh well. that's why i now tend to just skip reading the comments section more often than not. too much hysterics, not enough insight. once upon a time the tone of comments would have been more along the lines of 'just barely might be putting a bit too strongly...' but now everything is seen as a slight and the comments are less about discussion than they are about attacking and rooting out points of view that are insufficiently sympatico.
January 27, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is important to pya attention to the dissenting Democrats and ask why these men would vote no on this nomination. I suspect that his problems were a bit sleazier than he is admitting and that they were disgusted with his sloppiness and arrogance, but perhaps some enterprising young journalist will actually ask them instead of wasting time on what the Republicans did on this which was totally irrelevant.
January 26, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, they were playing politics because they knew that he was a shoe-in. Total political games, which is really pathetic at this point in our history and the disaster that is upon us. I actually am really, really scared about the economy and the total collapse of our country and way of life. It totally blew up over the last year plus and we have people playing freaking politics. It's disgusting. Those votes totally diminished my opinion of those senators, for what it's worth, not even a cup of coffee, but it is what it is.
January 26, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other than your personal guess this is so what do you offer as any evidence for your claim? I would take their objections seriously until there's some reason to believe otherwise. These three are some of the least likely members of the Senate to have any "politics" to play on this particular nomination. Your comments don't make any sense in that regard at all. What possible political points could any of these three be trying to score since they are all Democrats and the easy thing to do is approve? As far as you fear is concerned... get over it. The economy is gone and so is our previous "way of life". It can't be saved and won't. It's only a question of what will emerge from the catastrophe.
January 26, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey there Donna Warwick, your "I suspect that his problems were a bit sleazier than he is admitting" isn't anything more than a personal guess either. Michael A is as much a member of the Psychic Friends Network as you are.
January 27, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT but since no new blogs are up about it...
The clips of Obama being interviewed by Al Arabiya on AC 360 were refreshing. I can't wait until he gets to do a world tour to share his ideas. I'm certain he will be well received.
I'm also looking forward to hearing his speech at some Muslim capital that has not been disclosed yet. I know he spent time in Indonesia but this is nowhere near where the heart of the tension is.
If he can pull it off without being disrespectful he should speak in Hajj.
January 26, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concern is that appointing Geithner demonstrates very poor judgment on Obama's part. The guy is one of those New York Masters of the Universe who got us into this mess. His failure to pay his taxes demonstrates he isn't really a straight shooter. He seems to be a younger version of Hank Paulson. Nothing good is going to come of his appointment.
January 27, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
My concern is that you don't even have the slightest idea who Tim Geithner is, nor what his background is, and yet you have no problem making wildly stupid insinuation about him.
He is not, nor has not ever been an investment banker, bond trader or whatever else you unknowingly call a "master of the Universe. By contrast, Paulson, was head of Goldman frickin' Sachs.
Here's Geithner's background:
His father was with the Asia prgram in the Ford foundation so he spent most of his childhood living outside the United States, including present-day Zimbabwe, India and Thailand, where he completed high school at International School Bangkok
*He has a BA from Dartmouth and an MA from Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (1985). He is not a professional economist.
Treasury Department 1988-2001
*Joined International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988
*attache at the US Embassy in Tokyo
*deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996),
*senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997),
*assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).[8]
*Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001)
*International Monetary Fund,director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003)
*Senior Fellow in the International Economics departmentCouncil on Foreign Relations 2002
*President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
October 2003-2008; Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component.
By contrast Paulson, who has an MBA from Harvard and was briefly in government in the early 1970's worked for Goldman Sachs the world's premier investment bank from 1974 to 2006. Rising eventually to CEO and chairman.
January 27, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, as Josh pointed out (and linked) on the front page today, the real concern is that nobody knows if Geithner understands who he's working for now.
January 30, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"appointing Geithner demonstrates very poor judgment on Obama's part"
Not just poor judgment but "very poor." Since I haven't seen Obama display very poor judgment yet, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Obama obviously feels that Geithner is important to his economic team, which definitely out weighs $34,000 owed in back taxes. It seems possible that Geithner was a target during the Bush administration. If the Republicans want to use Geithner as a political tool in the future, then let them. We need to stop being scared of what the Republicans might do.
January 27, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Render unto me a frickin break. He did not intentional attempt to evade taxes. He made a mistake in a reasonably complicated situation and did exactly what every other American has to do in that situation--pay back what you owe with interest and penalties.
By all means let's make sure our education secretary never cheated on a test in high school, or that the transportation secretary never sped in his car. And make sure the secretary of HHS never ate fired chicken, or had 1 drink too many. How can you trust a Housing secretary who does not live in public housing. Or a head of EPA who once drove in an SUV.
January 27, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink