Posted on 12/01/2004 11:45:59 PM PST by neverdem
the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, has reached a dangerous new level of partisan zealotry to bolster the Republicans' control of government. For the new Congress, Mr. Hastert intends to cater to what he calls "the majority of the majority" in deciding which bills will get a vote and which won't. He has little use for the bipartisan majorities idealized in civics classes and once seen even in the House.
Mr. Hastert first enunciated his approach last year in a speech. "The job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority," he said. At the time, it sounded like mere grandstanding. But it was put into practice last month when Mr. Hastert - ostensibly tasked by President Bush with steering the intelligence reform bill to passage - trembled before opposition in his caucus and blocked the final compromise from a floor vote. Since this was in secret, it is not even clear that "the majority of the majority" exercised a veto; it was enough for Republican leaders to sense that plenty of Democrats would vote for the compromise on this desperately needed bill.
Capitol history shows that Democratic majorities did not hesitate to abuse Republican minorities. But during the long years when Democrats controlled the House, on some major bills affecting the national interest - like balancing the budget, reforming welfare and approving the free trade agreement during the Clinton years - Republicans were afforded a role. The Hastert doctrine hobbles any notion of compromise.
The speaker, whose candor is breathtaking in relegating the Democratic minority to somewhere beyond the pale, seems to be trying to solidify his influence over the members of the more conservative incoming majority. But cravenly surrendering his gavel to them seems an odd way to do that. It leaves Mr. Hastert looking more like a maître d' offering favored customers a good table than the most powerful man in Congress.
What a crock, balanced budgets and welfare reform were done when the pubbies had the House. I think the Times would just as soon give passports to illegal aliens, rather than hint that the issue about illegals getting defacto internal passports, driver's licenses, is one of the two holdups to passing the intelligence reform.
Did the NY Times object when Tom Daschle imposed a rule requiring that unless a majority of the Democratic caucus approved of a nominee, they would all have to unite in a filibuster?
That's because the Democrats have been doing nothing but ambush partisan crap for the past 2 years. To hell with them.
Oh God, somebody call a Waambulance.
As for >Republicans were afforded a role<
What BS!
As if those were devised, crafted, and promoted by dems!!
They still don't get it and they aren't ever going to.
We should start a boycott of their advertisers.
But like I told a rather wealthy Dim that I know up in Pa, who was screaming about the rule change for DeLay,
"It's a bitch being on the losing side ain't it?"
I don't know how to retrieve the vote for NAFTA, but I willing to bet NAFTA was passed in the House with almost all of the pubbie caucus and some blue or yellow dog dems.
That's how it should be.
Winner takes all. Ha Ha Ha
It's about time that the Repubs showed some spine.
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.