When I was young I was a baseball player—a southpaw pitcher. I learned early on that each umpire had a slightly different variation on the strike zone. As a player and pitcher, there was nothing I could do about that. You could not complain, you could not whine, you either adjusted to it or you lost. It’s that simple. The only thing I hoped was that regardless of where each umpire set his strike zone, he would be consistent.
No one can say that the Senate is not consistent when it comes to the 60-vote rule. Once used only on the highest-profile votes, a 60-vote threshold for winning legislative measures has been the norm for more than a decade now. We all know that—we all know where the “strike zone” is. In the case of the interchange issue, we were not able to get the 60 votes we needed to win.
So now is not the time to whine or complain that the strike zone changed. It was consistent with the Senate’s modern idea of a majority. We just were not able to get the “strike out.” We came close, but in baseball and politics, close does not get it done.
So rather than complain about strike zones and supermajorities, ICBA will move forward—not back. We will find other ways to win this issue for our community banks—and ultimately we will prevail. Just like a good pitcher, you learn from your setbacks and you keep your eyes focused on the next batter. Because the object is to win the game.