I think the word you're looking for is "stampede," as in:
(Time Magazine Cover, Nov. 21, 1994.)
Posted on 11/30/2004 8:58:23 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
WASHINGTON - Anyone who doubts the truth in the old axiom that the more things change the more they stay the same need only look at what is happening in Congress.
In 1994 after they had overthrown 40 years of Democratic Party rule, the Republicans pledged to bring a more just bipartisan approach to the business of lawmaking, which is Congress' primary responsibility.
The byword, they piously proclaimed, would be civility seasoned with integrity and fairness, that is, after they cleaned up a few things left over from all those years of barbarian rule.
It took only a few weeks for that promise to disappear in an avalanche of retribution that continues to this day.
Even the leader of the stunning GOP revolution, Newt Gingrich himself, ultimately resigned under the same ethical cloud that had cost his Democrat predecessor as speaker of the House, Jim Wright of Texas, his job, and Republicans seemed hell bent on not only duplicating the actions of their former tormentors but in devising new methods of partisan torture that make the past look like child's play.
Well, if the Democrats in both Houses had any idea that the worst of the last 10 years was over with generous appeals for unity from the White House to Capitol Hill in the wake of the decisive Republican victory, that notion has been dispelled by GOP leaders in both the House and Senate.
The Republican leaders have made it clear that as far as they're concerned generosity is a foreign word and there is only one party. There is no such thing as the loyal opposition or any kind of opposition for that matter.
On the House side, Speaker Dennis Hastert appears to have put on his wrestling togs to place the Democrats in the down position with his announcement that no legislation would see the light of day unless a majority of the majority wants it.
Meanwhile, his chief enforcer, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, has been given party approval to carry on as House majority leader even if he should be indicted in Texas by a grand jury looking into alleged shenanigans involved in that state's recent congressional redistricting in which he took an active role. The redistricting of course favored the Republicans.
At the same time in the Senate, Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist wants to overturn the time-honored filibuster with its 60 vote barrier, effectively emasculating Democrat dissent.
He also has taken steps to treat dissidents in his own party to some of the same medicine.
Frist will pack the top Republican committee assignments with only those who pass a conservative litmus test. He has brought about a rules change that allows him to pick the first two vacancies on all committees, a move his critics contend will undercut the seniority system and punish anyone out of step.
All this does not bode well for presenting Americans with rational solutions to such pressing problems as Social Security and intelligence reform, issues that because of their importance would always be better solved if possible with bipartisan input. History is certainly replete with examples of that.
President Bill Clinton's major initiative on health care, for instance, failed when his wife shut Republicans completely out of the drafting process.
On the other hand, there are any number of instances where bipartisanship has carried the day, including the landmark civil rights actions of the late 1950s and '60s when Republicans joined Democrats to prevail.
Such important legislation as the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform came about because of bipartisanship.
Indiscriminate, revengeful use of power deprives minority constituents of their voice in the government.
The millions of Americans who did not vote for the majority Republicans have a legitimate claim of disenfranchisement under those circumstances. Of all people, Republicans should be the first to realize this, having suffered all those years under Democratic regimes that were at times despotic.
There are occasions when the majority must conduct business in a forceful manner, when the president's proposals and the demands of those they represent legitimately require them to put down the opposition in favor of their own agenda.
But stifling dissent and altering the system so viciously as to carry out a policy of political absolutism for one's own interests are not the stuff of good government. This is a country of many voices.
No one expects the Republicans not to act like the majority. They earned it. But if they are to reflect the nature of the nation, they should use their force judiciously. Or have they forgotten so soon?
Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service
Emasculating democrats sounds good!
They did?
which is Congress' primary responsibility.
It is?
The Democrats have not been emasculated enough. They still think they rule the country and its time to give them an education on who's really boss.
Time-honored? Only when the rats are behind it.
Like Snarlin' Arlen?
IMO, they ought to bring back the old "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. I would love to see Robert "KKK" Bird or Teddy "Hic" Kennedy hold the floor of the Senate for 24-hours. If they want to block a vote bad enough, step up there big guy.
Just vote it. That's how a majority-rule system is supposed to work.
I have a recollection of a television interview at that time and a democrat (I think it was Rangel but I am not certain) was complaining mightily about the treatment dems were receiving.
The reporter asked him, 'but isn't this how you've been doing it for years?' And the dem said (and I swear to you it was with a straight face and highly indignant) "Yeah, but that doesn't make it right!"
Don't you love the use of the word "overthrown?" I don't remember an overthrow that year, but I do remember a November night of free and fair elections.
"time honored?"
only when it benefits the dems... Isn't it a "bit" disingenuous, forked tongue, in-your-face, fool even themselves, twisted rhetoric that when the pubs are in the majority, they are the ones who are supposed to capitulate and reach across the isle to people who sit there, sullenly, and refuse to compromise even on things they would normally - if in charge - vote for...
who carry it even further into all out gridlock, simply to block anything and everything...who, in their corkscrew logic, believe that they should be kowtowed to, should not have to be bipartisan but be begged and cajoled and capitulated too - or the pubs are the culprits..
Not really a puzzle - it's the way of the socialist, and we must start calling them what they are, indeed, what they call themselves (tho' not openly) ...Democratic Socialists.
If we start, now, always referring to them as Democratic Socialists, (they can't complain very loud about it - for the evidence is there - separating the Socialist fraction of the party from the old-time dems, like Zell, - make the division clear - then the old time, true dems, will start to understand that their party has been hijacked by the socialists...
The old-time dems will pull away and commence to strengthen the true dem party - while the Socialists will be unmasked for who and what they are.
It seems the socialists must be put down every 2-3 generations.
But if they can be exposed again, now, the party will be neutralized for 2-3 decades before the old-time democrat party principals can regain it's party.
And that will be very late for regaining control of the country.
Either way, the socialists - and they must always be mentioned as Democrat Socialists, so the connection is clear - must be driven back into their dark, dank caves.
CC Caller Times would give my Canary the runs, (If I had a Canary)
It is a WORTHLESS RAG and basically a waste of perfectly good ink.
TT
I think the word you're looking for is "stampede," as in:
(Time Magazine Cover, Nov. 21, 1994.)
"time honored?"
Yes time honored since the 70s when Democtrats couldn't get around a similar Republican minority, so they changed the Senate rules to make a supermajority 60 votes instead of a true supermajority or 2/3rds or 67 votes.
Kinda funny the writer didn't mention that here.
Also funny he didn't mention when the Senate was tied 50/50 but the Republicans controlled the Senate with the Vice Presidents vote. Senate Majority Leader Lott put together a bipartisan power sharing deal with Democrats, but the minute Jim Jeffords became an "Independent" the new Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, declared that all things "Republican" were controversial and he would not even consider them without 60 votes to do so.
Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service and the rest of the old media think we don't remember these things and put forth such ridiculous scribbling.
We remember and we won't let you misinform the public anymore!
My only question is:
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT ONCE PROMISING REVOLUTION IN 94?
The “revolution” was based on the “Contract with America” that Newt Gingrich and the GOP developed. The contract stated that if the American people elected the Republicans to a majority in the U.S. House, they would vote to pass the agenda items contained in the Contract.
All ten items in the Contract with America were brought to a vote in the U.S. House in the first 100 days as promised by the Contract. Nine of the ten items passed the House. The sole exception was Term Limits which received a plurality but required a two-thirds majority as a Constitutional Amendment.
Many of the tenets failed later tests, after facing a more liberal Senate and Clinton’s veto. In addition, the line item veto was passed, but was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The revolution can be credited with some tax cuts, bigger defense budgets, welfare reform, and tougher anti-crime laws. Most of the changes in House rules remain in effect, though the eight-year limit on the speaker's term has been rolled back.
Anybody elected to the House in 1994 is gone or has won reelection five times since then.
Bipartisanship? I remember the Republicans shoving it down XXX-42's throat three times before his advisors read the polls and told him it was politically popular and he better just swallow it. Most of the Dems just screeched about women and children starving in the street because of it.
Nah, it doesn't matter anyway. Their sexual proclivities pretty much exclude them from the gene pool in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.