GOP Is Now Pushing Pelosi's 2004 House Minority Bill Rights Proposal
By swingfloridavoter Posted in Congress | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The letter is signed by Patrick McHenry, Eric Cantor, and Tom Price, is based on a proposal made 2 years ago by Pelosi. The key conditions is as follows.
1.) 24 hours of review before consideration on the subcommittee level.
2.) Greater ability for minority members to add amendments to bills.
3.) Allowing members to have 24 hours of review before reaching the House floor.
Regardless of partisan bickering of Republican Majority arm strong tactics or how Democrats did the same to Republicans back in their Majority days; this is a good proposal, only thing I would like to see change is increasing 24 hours in points 1 and 3 to 72 hours.
While it is disappointing have had then 2004 speaker of House Dennis Hastert refused to consider it, more disappointing would be to see Pelosi refuse her own proposal, in the name of "I told you so," and/or revenge.
I hope Pelosi tells McHenry, Cantor, Price and the entire GOP House caucus to pound sand.
The last thing I want is for the House Republicans to get comfortable in the minority.
Like mbecker said - Elections. Have. Consequences.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
this is a half snark here (i think):
well, YOU (the republicans in congress) stonewalled it when YOU were the majority. now that the hand is on the other foot (sorry for the Airplane! movie refrence there) and YOU are the minority, YOU are all for it. i can defenatly see pelosi telling them to go pound sand...after all if they said "shove it" to the democrat minority...turnabout is fair play. i i have to say is, if this proposal is killed...don't come whining to me about it. youe were killing it in hte first place 2 years earlier...
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
sorry about that. that last part should read:
what i have to say is this, if this proposal is killed...don't come whining to me about it. you were the ones that killed it in the first place 2 years earlier...
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Was there some type of "Turn in your shift key for a tinfoil hat" program run on Kos?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
...be nice. This one hasn't started spouting curses, epithets or gutter talk yet. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Why should some letters be "upper-case" and others "lower-case"? Do we want to live in an America where some letters are considered second class, based simply on where they happen to reside in a sentence? This whole hierarchial way of thought is construct of the right-wing patriarchy.
You don't have to waste precious time reading 'em.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
left little finger to get in th Kos Konvention. Kinda like the Yakuza, or a Jonh Kerry, Signature Collection "Battle Scar" tattoo.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I hope she does kill it so we can have just one more example of the fact that the Democrats are the "Because we can party"
If they felt this was good for the nation when the republicans were in it should still be good now.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
well if she actually allows it to the floor (and it does pass) then in this case the democrats would come out ahead and it would make the republicans look even worse then the democrats. that is why i am willing to venture a guess that she will let it pass, not on the principle of bipartisinship or fairness but to make the republicans look bad/cheap/unfair/whatever.
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
...pass then about six years' worth of revenge fantasies will have to be tossed in the garbage. This would be academic, except that said fantasies are the cherished possessions of people who contribute large sums of money to the Democratic Party.
I agree with you; passing this would make the GOP look bad. The question is, is Pelosi willing to risk ticking off her base to do that?
...Wow, I really did type that, and mean it, too. Ain't politics grand? :)
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
... then what she'd do is say something along the lines of:
"Yes, we want this body to function as a genuinely deliberative institution, which is what our proposal two years ago was designed to promote. However, you on the other side have a poor recent history of running roughshod over your opponents and treating the House as a platform for playing partisan politics. So, if you can demonstrate over the course of the next two years that you are genuinely committed to raising the standard of behavior, we agree to pass the new rules."
She'd be better off admitting that it was all political, all along; so suck it up, losers.
Mind you, I'm operating under the working assumption that the Democrats have no intention of actually changing the way business is done. The above suggestion of yours would work just dandy in a scenario where the Democrats are going to stay as clean as a whistl...
...clean as a wh...
...clea...
Sorry. I can't write that without snickering.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
in the majority.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
what a craven act of supplication.
I want these guys shut out of everything for the next two years and perhaps they'll be hungry enough to run a freakin campaign in 08.
to see the Republicans demonstrate the grace of consistency. Why is it that we have to raise crassness to the level of our highest principle?
If Pelosi accepts, she weakens her party's position of strength in exchange for making the Republicans look bad short-term.
If Pelosi rejects, she gives ammo to the GOP, who can say 'the Democrats *say* they want to be bipartisan, but they're every bit as partisan as they accused us of being'.
Fork plays are a marvelous way for the minority party to put the majority in a bind. We need more well-thought-out ones for the next two years.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The house GOP is showing what a pathetic bunch of losers they are for letting these idiots bring this up.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
that NOBODY outside of Washington is going to care about in two weeks. Almost nobody cares now.
People will get wound up about legislation that passes or doesn't, people don't give a rip about procedures. Note that the Democratic controlled media didn't whimper about this in the last election cycle.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
The way a minority party exercises its influence against the majority party is by such fork plays. In politics, like many sports, if you're not on the offense, you're on the defense, which is tougher. One play in a football game, especially early in the 1st quarter, doesn't win the game; but consistently forcing your opponent into making bad choices will pay off eventually.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
the only people who care about the rules of the house are extreme political junkies and the congress members themselves.
I can't see this being much of a campaign issue in two years, although I do think the voters expect to see general bipartisanship-and I am not convinced the dems ever meant it, and that either side intends to play that hand.
This is more a congressional jab by the GOP at the DNC to see if they mean it, but I don't think it is going to turn into some national issue or something to point at in two years to garner votes.
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Why should a party that holds 51% of the representation get nearly 100% of the power? Hell, I'd go further, dividing committee chairs between the parties using some means or another. In any case, however, this reform would be a good step towards keeping the House truly open to the kind of deliberation and debate that America deserves.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
with this stupid bloggy horse and you bring here? Ya think maybe nobody will notice?
It was a stupid and discarded idea yesterday. It hasn't gotten any better with age. Call your congressman, suggest this solution to him. When he stops laughing, explain it again. See if he hangs up on you.
The majority in the House gets the power because ELECTIONS MATTER.
And change your signature. Some of like Muppets and you have yet to live up to the last part.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Now that I have your attention, I must say I agree with you. Elections do matter. This move is a craven attempt by the Republican leadership to soften the consequences of defeat. Pelosi is having none of it. She's planning on steamrolling through her bills through the first 100 hours, where they will then languish in the Senate.
Where, surprised Democrats will find to their dismay, Mitch McConnell will rule the roost.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I expect many of these Dem proposals have enough votes to sail through the Senate. I don't see us finding the votes to filibuster a minimum wage hike, for example.
I think they got 60 votes for a lot of bad bills. On stuff like amnesty and minimum wage hike... I think they got the votes. Maybe even (ick) PayGo (aka automatic annual tax hike) legislation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But only when Democrats get elected. When Republicans get elected they act in a bipartisan manner.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Since the only way a Republican can win an election is if Diebold helps them steal it, it should be obvious they have no mandate and therefore must govern like Democrats. It's the least they can do.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
sure about paygo. It is a feel good phrase, but I am willing to bet somebody puts the brakes on that one.
I am sure we will see a return of the Federal funding for stem cell research, and I bet that one goes through both houses, since it passed before. Not sure what Bush will do about it this go around.
I am actually not all that convinced Bush will find the veto pen, I think in the end he is going to sign the majority of the legislation, but I am hoping he finds it and doesn't lose it.
I never thought I'd find so many conservatives pushing for the total irrelevancy to of their congressional representatives. Although I agree that elections matter, the American people didn't vote to make the Democrats congressional tyrants; if they'd wanted that, they would have voted out every single Republican, or so it seems to me. I'm known as fairly liberal on my other posting board, and the folks there would be laughing themselves sick if they saw conservatives telling me that my opinions about empowering the minority conservative party are wrong.
Also, MBecker, I've *really* been trying to conduct a fairly amicable dispute with you, but I guess you're not having it. Is it possible for you to disagree with me without denigrating my opinions?
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
in other words, it's the place where elections REALLY matter. Your proposal, aside from the fact that the sound you're hearing is the founders spinning, is totally unworkable. Just how do expect that the Leadership of either party is going to give up power? What do you think they go to Washington for? Hint: it's not "to make a difference".
Secondly, how do you like the Senate? What you're suggesting will turn the House into the same foolish rule writing body as the Senate. One of those is enough.
I've whacked at your opinion because after a very long conversation, and with roughly a zillion good arguments (none from me, BTW) about why this is totally unworkable and undesirable, you keep waving the same flag. Nobody's interested in this turkey.
It's just an opinion. I have lots of lousy opinions. Feel free to point them out to me. But in the meantime, get over it. And it would be good to learn from this as well. Like you should think through your opinion before you toss it in the fire. I'm sure you are a very nice person and your family and friends prize your association. But this idea is just nonsense.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Well, MBecker, I certainly have learned from this. I've learned that debating you is like talking to Mediagirl (check her out on www.Mediagirl.org, if you're curious). She's kind of your liberal alternative-universe female self.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
Should a party that gets 51% of the presidential vote get 100% of the presidential power, or only 51%?
First of all, nobody elects a party president; we elect a person. In my view, politicians should first be Americans of good will and good intentions, not Republicans or Democrats. Second, since we only elect one president at a time, of course she must wield 100% of the power, but that doesn't mean she should ignore the minority of voters who chose the other candidate. Bush himself used to say, "I'm everybody's president", and on this I thought he had it right, whether intentionally or not.
I'm seeing that a number of posters here have a very different view, and I think that's the crux of the disagreement. I believe that the American political system functions best when power is spread out, debate is protracted, and government action is deliberate. Accordingly, I favor a Congress in which the minority party retains more than 5% of the power, and a president who is mindful that although he was elected possibly by only 51% of Americans, he has a duty to all of them.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
Interesting choice of pronouns, since there's never been a "she" elected to the office. Are you a big HRC supporter?
I believe that the American political system functions best when power is spread out, debate is protracted, and government action is deliberate.
First, that is what the Senate is for, not the House. We don't need another Senate. If you want the power to be "spread out," simply do away with our system of government and adopt a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister instead. That system works so well elsewhere... or not.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Dems still need a 60% majority to pass bills, so dems dont have complete power. Right now i am looking at the senate as a wild card chamber. While I agree with you on that, regardless of partisanship (including committee chairs), their are still plenty of moderates who vote occasionally outlines of party lines to to say that the Dem agenda is in full swing.
that last part should read:
outside of party line, so to say... full swing is unreasonable in regards to the Senate.
I hope Pelosi makes the Republican's life absolutely miserable for every day of the next two years. They deserve it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...