THE MISERY OF BEING A HOUSE DEMOCRAT.

The New Republic ^ | June 12, 2003 | Michael Crowley

[Torie]

Basically, the balance of the article discusses about how the Dems can't get any of their amendments voted upon to anything, due to the House Rules Committee, the GOP is cutting off pork to marginal Dems, voting on stuff late at night after the media cycle is over, giving minimal notice for hearings so the Dems can't call their own witnesses or prepare, printing bills at the last minute so the Dems can't figure out what is in them, and in general the GOP is doing a full court press of stifling the Dems both in the House and in the public square in a way that goes beyond the games the Dems ever played. And to compound it all, the media ignores all of this and them.

So is this in the larger scheme of things, in the fullness of time, a good thing or a bad thing?

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

"The rights of the minority are to collect their stipend and their only duty is to form a quorum." -- Sam Rayburn

Eat ----, Democrats. Betray the country, lose your majority. Any questions?

[donozark]

Dems did it to Republicans for 40 odd years. Turn about is fair play. But then there is the Senate...judicial nominees backed up. Tax Bill got "altered" in a drastic manner.

As RUSH says, "These Democrats cannot stand to be out of power." Let's hope it stays that way...

[BCrago66]

According to the House rules, the party acquiring the majority is expresly authorized to bitch-slap the minority.

[DPB101]

Nothing compared to what Democrats did when they ran the House. From CONGRESSIONAL OBSERVER PUBLICATIONS. U.S. Congressional Votes. 1993 House Sessions:

According to House Rules, the schedule is completely controlled by the Democrat Leadership. Republicans are informed about the legislative schedule but not consulted. The number of sessions each committee or sub- committee has and the length of such sessions varies widely and is controlled by the Democrat Chairman of each committee. Although many believe that the "real" work of Congress is done in committee, public records of attendance at committee and subcommittee meetings are not readily available. Further, under House Rules, proxy voting is allowed in committee, i.e., a member may be recorded as voting while actually somewhere else.

The exchanges today were very important in terms of establishing the Democrats position regarding the Speaker's ability through the Rules Committee to include any legislation the majority wanted and have that legislation protected against points of order even before the adoption of a rule that waived all points of order. In essence Democrats have added a weapon to their overwhelming arsnal which virtually assurs them of legislative success even if they do not have a majority supporting the actual legislation . . .

Congressman Jim Inhofe, in a partial one-minute speech, announced that Discharge Petition #2 had received the required number of 218 signatures. This Discharge Petition was the focus on significant attention during the recess with the names of members who had not signed printed in the Wall Street Journal. Inhofe's original legislation, which was bottled up in the Rules Committee, would allow Discharge Petition Signatures to be made public. Since the Democrat leadership has used the secrecy to protect members who claimed support for a measure but were really opposed, they worked vigorously to keep Inhofe's legislation from coming to a vote . . . much, much more here

[headsonpikes]

"...in a way that goes beyond the games the Dems ever played."

Is this true?

The Rules Committee's powers have been troubling to me since I first read about the Democrats, and how they played the 'Rules' game in Congress 40 years ago!

Hubris and nemesis battle it out! ;^)

[AlaskaErik]

"This really should be a bipartisan amendment," he says, as Linder crosses his arms and frowns.

When it comes to bipartisanship, the Rats only whine when they are in the minority. Were they the majority party, they would be utterly ruthless. Basically, our way or the highway.

[pepperhead]

And how did the Demoncrats treat the Republicans when they were in charge? What comes around goes around.

[Bubba_Leroy]

[Torie]

The thesis of the article is that the GOP dictatorship is much more Draconian and one sided and sophisticated then it was under the Dems, although it was hardly a lesson in good civics under the Dem regime. The suggestion is made that maybe the Dems should just go native ala Newt and try to put as much sand in the wheels as possible, gain attention, and maybe get some attention. I suppose one side effect is the the GOP House jihad might make the Dems in the Senate that much more partisan. Is that a good thing or a bad thing in the long run?

[Drango]

"It's a fascistic system," fumes George Miller, a fiery California liberal

Yeah Miller...when Dems ran the House, didn't he adjourn, and then reassemble in the Democratic Cloak room where the Republicans couldn't go. He knows all about fascist.

[Tribune7]

and in general the GOP is doing a full court press of stifling the Dems both in the House and in the public square in a way that goes beyond the games the Dems ever played.

Somehow I doubt that.

OTOH, maybe what the Dems need is a leader like Bob Michels. You know, someone able to compromise . . .:-)

[pepperhead]

How much more partisan can the Senate Demoncrats be? How many more judges can the filibuster?

[Drango]

There is more, but it is pay for view article, and I pay

You PAY to read a liberal rag?

[Torie]

We need to try to be a bit non partisan here and take the longer view. Is this what we want, a winner take all system, where the minority is screwed in every way relating to process possible? That is the question. I am ambivalent about the answer myself. A totally non porous partisan system ala a parliamentary system has its plusses and minuses. And the US is headed in that direction, after 200 years of not being that way. It represents a systemic change, in part due to the collapse of the Torie Dems in the South.

[Torie]

It is really the best magazine printed, for those that want intellectual stimulus. And that is a fact in my opinion. The articles have depth and breadth in enough cases on public policy issues to separate it from the pack.

[William McKinley]

This is a good thing.

[Navy Patriot]

Anything done to screw the DemoRats is "a good thing" as it is payback.

Incidently, the "non-partisan" civil service system shields bureaucratic traitors to the constitution from the wrath of the voters. Elected patriots cannot remove them.

[AmishDude]

It has always been thus with the House. It it is always thus with Democrats to whine about how life is not fair. Further, I do not trust TNR to be an objective arbiter of what constitutes fairness.

In addition, the objections you list, especially "voting on stuff late at night after the media cycle is over" serves to keep the Democrats from grandstanding. Hardly a blow to democracy.

But let's scratch beneath the surface. Is this not an indictment of the leadership (or lack thereof) of Nancy Pelosi? The Democrats have worked hard to set up an adversarial position with respect to Republicans. That works well in the Senate, where everything can be blocked with a filibuster, but in the House, it simply prevents the majority from even considering compromise. The Republicans feel -- rightly so -- that it is useless to work with Democrats.

[Torie]

Isn't that perhaps the point, although the point can be pushed too far. ie that the Dems in the Senate have been inspired by the GOP in the House. I am not flatly asserting that there is in fact leakage between the bodies, I merely pose the question.