PDA

View Full Version : Republicans use porn to prevent jobs bill.



ljb5
05-14-2010, 09:56 PM
From Talking Points Memo. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/gop-kills-science-jobs-bill-by-forcing-dems-to-vote-for-porn.php?ref=fpb)

It's just too silly.

I honestly don't understand the intricacies of all this procedural wrangling... but we are way, way, past the point where the Republicans can claim to be anything other than the party of obstructionism.

RodSBT
05-14-2010, 10:23 PM
The eyore's own the house, the senate and the executive office. How can the hepholumps be "the party of obstructionism"?

ljb5
05-14-2010, 10:38 PM
The eyore's own the house, the senate and the executive office. How can the hepholumps be "the party of obstructionism"?

The article linked above provides an example and explanation of this phenomenon.

BrianW
05-15-2010, 02:46 AM
It's only obstructionism, if it gets in your way.

"But they didn't have the stomach for it, and 121 Democrats jumped ship and voted with Republicans to kill the bill. "

That's all I need to know, this thread is a lie.

Bob Adams
05-15-2010, 05:55 AM
It's only obstructionism, if it gets in your way.

"But they didn't have the stomach for it, and 121 Democrats jumped ship and voted with Republicans to kill the bill. "

That's all I need to know, this thread is a lie.

What did you expect Brian, considering who started the thread.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 06:03 AM
It's only obstructionism, if it gets in your way.

Brian, the great moral relativist, strikes again.

Sharpie21
05-15-2010, 06:25 AM
The US Federal government is flat broke. Any legislation to increase funding for any program needs to be killed, by any means possible.

These are times when obstructionism can be viewed as a virtue....

LeeG
05-15-2010, 06:38 AM
So is the beef that spending needs to be cut and the manner they're stopping the bill is offensive?
Seems to me this is exactly the place we don't need cutting, investment in education and science. $85 Billion could be take off of the war making machinery, but that would require Obama to reduce the war making policies and I don't see that happening.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011856396_apuscongresspornploy.html?syndication=r ss

LeeG
05-15-2010, 06:41 AM
The US Federal government is flat broke. Any legislation to increase funding for any program needs to be killed, by any means possible.

These are times when obstructionism can be viewed as a virtue....

Kill ABM deployment, Airborne Based Laser and save $10Billion/yr They're ineffective against ICBMS and economic competition.

BrianW
05-15-2010, 06:41 AM
What did you expect Brian, look considering who started the thread.

I don't feel that strongly. Just that many times these C&P's, and fantastic thread titles come up very short when you read the articles.

I don't know why, but the thread titles have become quite inflammatory lately.

I suspect that it's all an effort at 'slight of hand'.... "watch this trivial event over here, while the real stuff is happening over there."

ljb5
05-15-2010, 06:44 AM
The US Federal government is flat broke. Any legislation to increase funding for any program needs to be killed, by any means possible.

I may agree with you to some extent, but this was a bill about jobs and education, which many people believe that is the best (perhaps only) way to get us out of this hole.

Lord knows, the Republicans complained enough when Obama cut funding for NASA.


These are times when obstructionism can be viewed as a virtue....

At least you admit it is obstructionism, which shows more integrity than Brian and Bob.

Bob Adams
05-15-2010, 06:53 AM
I don't feel that strongly. Just that many times these C&P's, and fantastic thread titles come up very short when you read the articles.

I don't know why, but the thread titles have become quite inflammatory lately.

I suspect that it's all an effort at 'slight of hand'.... "watch this trivial event over here, while the real stuff is happening over there."

I know, maybe I was a bit extreme. I'm a registered Democrat who happens to be a moderate. I don't toe ANY party line and I'm just tired of the people on the left and the right who allow thier party to do the thinking for them and then lash out with the sensational and inflammatory titles you have seen lately. I better get back above deck.:p

ljb5
05-15-2010, 06:59 AM
Brian, Bob, Sharpie...

Would it be fair to say that you're against the bill, but would have preferred to see it defeated in a different way?

Is forcing a vote on porn viewing really the way you want your government to operate?

BrianW
05-15-2010, 07:26 AM
I may agree with you to some extent, but this was a bill about jobs and education, which many people believe that is the best (perhaps only) way to get us out of this hole.

I thought the new health care bill was the key to recovery.


...which shows more integrity than Brian and Bob.

Like I said, it's obstructionism when you don't like it. Political process when you do.

I stand by that statement, integrity intact.

C. Ross
05-15-2010, 07:39 AM
Are you really that naive about parliamentary procedure?

Perhaps you might want to read Rep. Hall's press release (http://gop.science.house.gov/Pressroom/Item.aspx?ID=243), which is linked from the original TPM story. Here are some excerpts:


Republicans supported many of the programs in the underlying bill but raised a host of concerns regarding increased costs, a shift in priorities, and the inappropriate use of Federal funding represented in some of the programs.

“I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act and believe that we should continue to prioritize investments in basic research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education,” said Ranking Member Hall. “However, this bill spends too much money and goes far beyond the original intent and scope of the COMPETES legislation.”

...

Republicans offered several amendments throughout the legislative process to address these concerns, but Democrats blocked most of these from consideration and defeated others prior to passage of the Republican MTR. Republicans were disappointed that they did not have the opportunity to cast a final vote on the improved bill.


The important bit is in bold. It's easy enough to look up the Rule (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/%7Ec111fWzBDU::) that was used for floor debate on this bill. If you read it (H.Res 1344) you'll find that the Rules Committee prohibited the Republicans from offering any amendment to the bill which they generally supported but wanted to improve.

Surely you understand that the minority in the House usually is tightly constrained, but in this Congress the Rules Committee has almost always prohibited minority amendments on the floor.

So what do you do when you're in the minority operating under a gag rule? You use a parliamentary procedure (which is always permitted regardless of the rules for debate on a particular bill) and attach instructions which make it difficult for the majority to pass their bill. The goal is to get your amendments considered in the Committee or in the House.

Full debate with amendments, followed by up-or-down votes, would be great.

So who, really, is being obstructionist when debate and amendment is prohibited?

ljb5
05-15-2010, 08:03 AM
So what do you do when you're in the minority operating under a gag rule? You use a parliamentary procedure (which is always permitted regardless of the rules for debate on a particular bill) and attach instructions which make it difficult for the majority to pass their bill.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. The Republicans used a procedural maneuver (in this case, a vote on porn viewing) to make it difficult to pass the bill.


So who, really, is being obstructionist when debate and amendment is prohibited?

Now you're being naive.

The Republicans' amendments were considered.

They may not have been formally introduced to the committee for debate and a vote, but it's not like they've been buried in a secret vault somewhere.

The members of the committee certainly had an opportunity to consider them enough to decide not to introduce them.

If you think the only debate that happens in Washington D.C. happens in a formal committee of Congress, you're being very naive.

C. Ross
05-15-2010, 08:46 AM
The Republicans' amendments were considered.

Really? What does "considered" mean?


They may not have been formally introduced to the committee for debate and a vote...

What does that mean?


The members of the committee certainly had an opportunity to consider them enough to decide not to introduce them.

Really? Where and when, exactly, did the "members of the committee" have an "opportunity to consider [amendments]" and who "decide[d] not to introduce them?

The Republicans went to the Rules Committee and said "we want to introduce and debate these amendments". The Democrats said "no". Who "considered" and who decided "not to introduce them"?


If you think the only debate that happens in Washington D.C. happens in a formal committee of Congress, you're being very naive.

Isn't your thread about "formal committee[s] of Congress"?

Your original post said you didn't understand the intricacies of the procedural wrangling...that's fair and honest enough, this is pretty obscure stuff.

But if you do understand the intricacies, the story is that the Republicans wanted the bill passed with amendments to take out certain provisions. They offered amendments to the House Rules Committee, and the Committee said no. The Republicans offered a parliamentary procedure to push the bill back to the originating committee and the Rules Committee, and won. Now, we'll see if the Democrats give them a chance to offer their amendment, or whether this bill gets wrapped into a bigger bill where amendments, again, will be prohibited.

Bob Adams
05-15-2010, 09:27 AM
Spin Ill Jay, Spin!

ljb5
05-15-2010, 10:12 AM
The Republicans went to the Rules Committee and said "we want to introduce and debate these amendments". The Democrats said "no". Who "considered" and who decided "not to introduce them"?

I love it when you ask a question you've just answered in the preceding sentence.

Spinning like that is a clear indication that you've lost your footing.

If there were any support for the Republicans' amendments, they could have approached the Democrats and said, "Help me support this to get it through the rules committee."

Obviously, there wasn't enough support to do that. Proposed amendments without enough support to even be considered deserve to be discarded. An important part of any debate in Congress is deciding what amendments not to introduce. If no limit is imposed, the minority party could (and would) introduce an infinite number of frivolous amendments.

So yes, the Rules Committee and the majority do have (and rightfully so!) the power to limit the introduction of amendments... especially those without enough support to get passed.

But this has nothing to do with the Republicans attaching a porn-viewing condition to the vote. You're trying to avoid that part of the story.

BrianW
05-15-2010, 10:31 AM
Spinning like that is a clear indication that you've lost your footing.

Sort of like commenting on someones integrity. Nah, not that bad.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 10:36 AM
Sort of like commenting on someones integrity. Nah, not that bad.

You're the one who said this thread is a lie.

We're you spinning, or are you going to claim that spin isn't spin when it goes your way?

The facts of this case are really quite simple: The Republicans were unhappy with the bill. Although they lacked the votes needed to change it (they lack the votes because the American people voted them out of the majority), they used a procedural move to force an untenable vote on an unrelated issue (porn.)

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about. Those are the facts and they won't change just because you want them to.

BrianW
05-15-2010, 11:19 AM
(they lack the votes because the American people voted them out of the majority)

But they didn't vote them out entirely. The lack of a majority standing doesn't mean they are not suppose to represent their constituents.

Therefore, they used procedure to get the job done.

Are you suggesting that the minority party roll over for the majority party?

ljb5
05-15-2010, 11:37 AM
Therefore, they used procedure to get the job done.

Yes, that's what I said... they used a procedural maneuver (forcing an untenable vote on porn viewing) to obstruct passage of the bill.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against that.

BrianW
05-15-2010, 12:16 PM
Yes, that's what I said... they used a procedural maneuver (forcing an untenable vote on porn viewing) to obstruct passage of the bill.

'Untenable'?

Really? Then why did 125 Democrats vote the so called 'untenable' vote?


That provision scared dozens of Democrats into voting with Republicans to approve the motion to recommit. After it became clear the GOP motion was going to pass, dozens of additional Democrats changed their votes from "no" to "yes." In the end, 121 Democrats voted with Republicans -- only four fewer than the number of Democrats who voted with their party.


Since you brought up the porn issue, what's wrong with the proposed amendment?


But the Republican motion to recommit the bill -- a parliamentary tactic that gives the minority one final chance to amend legislation -- contained language prohibiting federal funds from going "to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography, including child pornography, on a federal computer or while performing official government duties."

Do you support tax payer money going to federal employees who are watching porn on government time?

C. Ross
05-15-2010, 12:18 PM
You should have stopped before you got in trouble:


I honestly don't understand the intricacies of all this procedural wrangling


If there were any support for the Republicans' amendments, they could have approached the Democrats and said, "Help me support this to get it through the rules committee."

Do you have proof that they didn't do this? It's common practice for the minority to seek majority support (typically among interested sub-caucuses) for a rule that allows amendments to be debated.


So yes, the Rules Committee and the majority do have (and rightfully so!) the power to limit the introduction of amendments... especially those without enough support to get passed.

OK, you have one part right - "limit". But in this case the Democratic caucus decided to "prohibit" the introduction of amendments.

Why do you think that might be?

Hint: the Rules Committee issues "no amendment" rules when the party leadership believes that moderate members of their party will support amendments offered by the minority. This happens under both Democratic and Republican rule.

The fact that this bill came to the floor with a "no amendment" rule is pretty decent proof that the Republicans actually HAD support for their amendment among Democrats, so the Caucus and the Rules Committee suppressed it.

Why? Because the Democratic caucus as a whole in the House is more moderate than its leadership. We've seen Democrats vote for Republican amendments, and offer their own moderate amendments, on almost all the major bills in the last two years. So, the leadership is increasingly clamping down.


But this has nothing to do with the Republicans attaching a porn-viewing condition to the vote. You're trying to avoid that part of the story.

I'm not avoiding it all - I think the porn-viewing language was very cleverly designed and I admire it! It's an effective attack on the tyranny of the majority caucus and I'm glad it succeeded. Now, let's see if the bill returns to the floor with a decent rule that allows bi-partisan amendments.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 04:43 PM
'Untenable'?

Really? Then why did 125 Democrats vote the so called 'untenable' vote?

Brian, your understanding of the issue is backwards.

I'm sorry you were confused, but I'm glad we got that out in the open.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 04:51 PM
Do you have proof that they didn't do this? It's common practice for the minority to seek majority support (typically among interested sub-caucuses) for a rule that allows amendments to be debated.

Indeed, I suspect they did.

We know one of two things happened:

Either they attempted (and failed) to win support
or they didn't even attempt.


Either way, it's clear that the Republicans' amendments lacked the support needed to introduce them... let alone pass them.

Since it is clear that there was not sufficient support to pass them into law, Congress was wise to not waste one single moment of time on them.

I am not going to shed a tear for all the amendments that don't get debated because nobody supports them. Unsupported amendments should be discarded.


I think the porn-viewing language was very cleverly designed and I admire it!

I'm not surprised to hear you say that. Many people (including many Republicans) have said they disapprove of the practice of attaching unrelated issues to bills in Congress. Naturally, of course, I never expected any consistency in the application of that principle.

woodrat
05-15-2010, 05:13 PM
There's nothing new at all here. For years the republicans have acted like they are the only party that should ever have the right to govern, and they seem to believe that no matter what is ever offered up by a democrat, it is automatically bad for the country, always, and should be defeated no matter what the means or the cost. If they can't amend it into a Repub proposal, they will obstruct every single thing the Dems put forward in any way that they can, forever. If they regain the majority, who thinks for a minute that they are even going to pretend to be bipartisan? Who here thinks that when Dems offer up amendments to bills in some future Repub controlled committee that they will have a snowball's chance in hell of being adopted?

To hear some of the more rabid repub/tea party rhetoric out there, a lot of them don't think the democratic party should even exist in America, let alone have a seat at the table of government.

woodrat
05-15-2010, 06:18 PM
actually, that doesn't wash, logically speaking, at all...

there's a whole lot of empty space in there, in between opposing this particular legislative maneuver, and approving of watching porn on the job.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 06:28 PM
Brad's a liar. What else is new?

Oh look, it's Saturday night.

Anyone else notice that Brad always tries to pick a fight on a Saturday night?

ljb5
05-15-2010, 08:03 PM
So, lj, you say it is wrong to penalize folks for watching porn at work ... then getting disciplined for it ... and potentially not getting paid?


I did not say anything of the sort.

Either you misunderstand the nature of the Republican's procedural trap, or you're simply trying to start an argument.

Do not accuse me of having taken a position unless you can prove it.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 08:32 PM
You TOOK your ridiculous, spinning, I'm-holier-than-thou-useless-stupid position when you POSTED this STUPID NONSENSE.

What nonsense?

The story is true.

I provided accurate information about it and I even included documentation so you can go read about it for yourself.

You have a problem with that?

BrianW
05-15-2010, 08:52 PM
Brian, your understanding of the issue is backwards.

I'm sorry you were confused, but I'm glad we got that out in the open.

How so? Just about half the democrats thought it tenable, and voted for the bill.

Therefore, your 'untenable' stance was dead wrong.

There's no confusion about that. :D

Now we're trying to figure out why you approve of government workers getting paid to watch child pornography. :eek:

How's that for out in the open?

Phillip Allen
05-15-2010, 08:57 PM
I've been saying it for years now...that guy would lie on credit when he could tell the truth for cash

so much for PhD's...you can put a dress on a pig but it's still just a pig

BrianW
05-15-2010, 09:04 PM
That about covers my stance, Brian!!! :D :D :D

What's funny, is that there were other provisions that the Republicans included in their motion to recommit, which might have been debatable, but ljb decided to go with the porn angle.

I guess while republican politicians are out having actual affairs, democrat politicians are in their government offices watching porn like teenage boys. :)

Phillip Allen
05-15-2010, 09:08 PM
giving that boy the ability to debate is like giving a small child a gun and expecting nothing will go wrong...just as long as it's his own mouth he shoots off

if his brains was dynomite he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose

Phillip Allen
05-15-2010, 09:15 PM
glad we're keeping him entertained :)

ljb5
05-15-2010, 10:45 PM
You guys seem to be confused about the facts of the issue.

I'm in favor of jobs and I'm against porn in the workplace.... I just think it's totally wrong of the Republicans to combine the two issues into one vote so that it's impossible to vote in favor of one without voting in favor of the other.

And Brian: You need to watch your mouth. You know there is no support for that statement you made in post #38. You might be able to fool Brad and Phillip with that type of trash, but you and I both know that's not my position at all. That was dishonest and rude... and I really think you owe me an apology.

My position is simply that the issue of porn viewing should not be attached to a bill about jobs and education.... and it sure as hell shouldn't be attached in such a way as to force people to vote in favor of porn in order to vote in favor of jobs.

That's the whole issue right there: combining unrelated issues in a cynical, manipulative maneuver.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 11:02 PM
NO, you are NOT!


You are mistaken.

It's obvious that you failed to understand the issue.

And it's just plain silly for you to try to tell me what my position is. Feel free to re-read the thread as many times as you need to until you understand it.

C. Ross
05-15-2010, 11:32 PM
ljb5, you started with


I honestly don't understand the intricacies of all this procedural wrangling... and have been proving it over and over.


Since it is clear that there was not sufficient support to pass them into law, Congress was wise to not waste one single moment of time on them.

I am not going to shed a tear for all the amendments that don't get debated because nobody supports them. Unsupported amendments should be discarded.

That's a keeper!

Your posts indicate that you may not understand how the House works, the role of the Rules Committee, or the conditions under which amendments are allowed under a rule. If you want to understand Congress it is important to understand procedure.


Many people (including many Republicans) have said they disapprove of the practice of attaching unrelated issues to bills in Congress. Naturally, of course, I never expected any consistency in the application of that principle.

You are conflating a couple of ideas.

One, in this case, a motion to recommit with instructions is not "attaching unrelated issues to bills in Congress". A motion to recommit with instructions, or a motion to instruct conferees, is always allowed on any bill regardless of the rule for consideration of the bill, either when the House acts as a Committee of the Whole, or as the House. It is also allowed in House committees at any time with respect to bills reported from Subcommittees. It is also allowed in the House and the Senate with respect to bills reported from Conference Committees. So perhaps you can see that what the Republicans did on this bill is not unusual at all.

Two, perhaps you're assuming that the provision related to porn viewed by federal employees is now either in the bill recommitted to the Committee, or maybe you think it's law? The Committee can and almost certainly will strike that provision from the bill when it reconsiders it. The Committee almost certainly will either consider the Republican amendments in Committee, or it will recommend to the Rules Committee that Republican amendments or a single amendment in the form of a substitute be allowed under the rule for debate on the bill. In any case, the originating committee and the Rules Committee will not simply return the bill as-is, with the rule used previously, to the floor.

Three, considering non-germane amendments to a bill is handled differently in the House and the Senate. The Senate has extremely weak rules of germaneness. The House, which we're discussing here, has strong rules of germaneness.

It's not clear what you're referring to when you write "many people (including many Republicans) have said they disapprove of the practice of attaching unrelated issues to bills in Congress." Are you referring to the Senate, to omnibus bills in the House, or something else? Where exactly do you see inconsistency?

Either way, it'll be really easy to see which one of us was right when this bill returns to the Committee and the House. I am very comfortable bookmarking this thread and bumping it when that time comes.

ljb5
05-15-2010, 11:55 PM
One, in this case, a motion to recommit with instructions is not "attaching unrelated issues to bills in Congress".

Yes, it is. The bill was about jobs and education. It was ready for a final vote, which would have passed. The Republicans failed to win support for their amendments and were desperate to stop the final vote, so they used a motion to recommit to prevent the vote.

To get their motion to pass, they attached a totally unrelated issue (porn) to a bill about jobs and education.


A motion to recommit with instructions, or a motion to instruct conferees, is always allowed on any bill regardless of the rule for consideration of the bill...

A motion to recommit is always allowed, but usually rejected because they usually do not contain such irrelevant and incendiary topics. Usually what happens is someone makes a motion, they have a brief vote, the motion is denied and the bill moves forward to a final vote.

This case is unusual in that (a) the motion passed (thereby blocking the final vote) and (b) the content of the motion was incendiary and unrelated to the actual bill.


Two, perhaps you're assuming that the provision related to porn viewed by federal employees is now either in the bill recommitted to the Committee, or maybe you think it's law?

No, of course not.

The porn provision served no purpose other than preventing a final vote. It was never intended to become law... it was intended only to prevent the bill from moving forward.

It's not law, probably will never become law --- and the Republicans will try to prevent the entire bill from ever getting a vote.

Pure obstructionism, plain and simple.


Either way, it'll be really easy to see which one of us was right when this bill returns to the Committee and the House. I am very comfortable bookmarking this thread and bumping it when that time comes.

There is no need to bump this thread in the future to find out who was right. I've already been proved right.

It's really quite simple: The bill was ready for a final vote and would have passed. The Republicans used a maneuver to prevent the final vote.

That's the whole story right there and it has already happened.

In the future, there are several possible outcomes:

The bill will die in committee.
The bill will emerge from committee unchanged.
The bill will emerge from committee with the porn rule.
The bill will emerge from committee with Republican amendments.


The Republicans say they want the fourth outcome, but I suspect they really want the first.

I doubt anyone seriously cares about the third.

Regardless of what happens in the future, I've already been proved right: The bill was ready for a final vote, but the Republicans obstructed it.

If you'd like to lay a bet about what might happen in the future, I'd be interested to see your prediction. But one thing we can both agree on is that this bill did not pass yesterday. And that's a fact.

C. Ross
05-16-2010, 12:11 AM
The capital letters are a nice touch, but you still don't know what you're talking about.

Dude, it was an interesting little piece in TPM, but overblown. You don't need to blow a gasket defending your Competence. It's perfectly OK to make a mistake and you don't need to go down in flames defending it.

Glen Longino
05-16-2010, 12:14 AM
El Jay made no mistake!
The Republicans made a desperate obstructionist move and all you gents know it and are proud of it. Shame, Shame!

Paul Girouard
05-16-2010, 12:14 AM
It's perfectly OK to make a mistake and you don't need to go down in flames defending it.



Yes he does. And he will :D

Nicely played Mr. Ross, yes indeed, nicely played :D

ljb5
05-16-2010, 12:16 AM
The capital letters are a nice touch, but you still don't know what you're talking about.

You agree with me on the facts, but you think you're arguing against me.

Perhaps you think I said something that I did not actually say? Please double check.

The facts are quite simple: The bill was ready for a final vote and would have passed. The Republicans were desperate to stop it, so they launched an unusual motion.

Because of that motion, the bill did not proceed to a final vote, and did not pass.

The future fate of the bill is uncertain.

Those facts are really quite simple. If you think they are wrong, please explain.

The facts of the case as you described them are identical to the facts as I described them... yet you say I'm mistaken.

C. Ross
05-16-2010, 12:47 AM
You agree with me on the facts, but you think you're arguing against me.

We may agree on the reported facts. The TPM piece omits important facts, mainly that the Rules Committee sent this bill to the House with a no-amendment rule. An error of omission is still an error.


Perhaps you think I said something that I did not actually say? Please double check.

Sure!


The Republicans were desperate to stop it...

Nope, they did not want to stop it, but supported it but sought to improve it.

Proof: From the TPM piece you linked:

The bill had passed the committee (http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/panel-backs-bill-aimed-at-boos.php) last month with bipartisan support, in a vote of 29 to 8. Proof: A statement from the ranking minority member of the committee, also available via the TPM piece:

“I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act and believe that we should continue to prioritize investments in basic research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education,” said Ranking Member Hall. “However, this bill spends too much money and goes far beyond the original intent and scope of the COMPETES legislation.”
...so they launched an unusual motion.

Nope.

1. Motions to recommit, with and without instructions, are not uncommon.

2. Why did they "launch" this motion? One more time...because they were not permitted to offer a single amendment.



Because of that motion, the bill did not proceed to a final vote, and did not pass.

Yes


The future fate of the bill is uncertain.

Yes.


Here's the error, one more time: TPM, and you, are saying that the Republicans wanted to stop the bill entirely. They did not. TPM and you are saying that the Republicans are being obstructionist. The facts are more complicated, and bi-directional. The Democratic-dominated Rules Committee did not allow debate of any amendments. (Why? Again, see my earlier post...the Rules Committee strangles debate when they think their caucus may support an amendment that the leadership opposes.)

Would the Republicans have offered the motion to recommit had they had a chance to offer their amendment? Well, it looks like we'll find out when the bill returns to the floor. And then we'll find out which of us was right...this was only round 1.

BrianW
05-16-2010, 03:31 AM
And Brian: You need to watch your mouth... ...and I really think you owe me an apology.

My mouth is just fine. Perhaps you shouldn't demean others integrity, and expect nothing in return.


At least you admit it is obstructionism, which shows more integrity than Brian and Bob.

You reap what you sow.


My position is simply that the issue of porn viewing should not be attached to a bill about jobs and education....

It relates directly to the jobs of Federal employees. Therefore, it's a job issue.

Phillip Allen
05-16-2010, 08:04 AM
Sorry, Phillip ... I deleted the last post ... after talking to my dad ...

:(

'sokay...

ljb5
05-16-2010, 09:25 AM
Nope, they did not want to stop it, but supported it but sought to improve it.

As of right now, all they have managed to do is stop it. The idea that they 'support' it is at least a little incompatible with the fact that they stopped it.

The idea that they will seek to "alter" it is, as of right now, pure speculation.

(Let's avoid using the word "improve." That's a value judgment not shared by everybody. The bill has already made it through in its current form, so 'improve' is debatable.)


Proof: A statement from the ranking minority member of the committee, also available via the TPM piece:

Oh, come on! Your "proof" is a verbal statement from a Republican Congressman‽

That must have seemed silly to you even as you were typing it.


1. Motions to recommit, with and without instructions, are not uncommon.

MTR usually occur when the majority feel the bill needs to be modified before final vote. In this case, the majority supported the bill as written. The MTR was driven by an incendiary issue not in the bill --- and unlikely to actually ever appear in the bill.

It's unusual to MTR a bill that has enough support for a final vote. And doubly so to do it with a bizarre addendum from left field.


The facts are more complicated, and bi-directional.

Bi-directional, but not symmetrical.

The Democrats control the Rules Committee because they are the majority party. This happened because the American voters cast their ballots this way.

The Republicans command less power in Congress because they are in the minority -- (again, because the American people voted that way.)

I understand that you don't like the view from the backseat, but you're going to have to accept (at least for now) that this is what the American people voted for.

Respect for our political system and the will of the voters requires us to put the Republicans in a position of limited power.


Would the Republicans have offered the motion to recommit had they had a chance to offer their amendment? Well, it looks like we'll find out when the bill returns to the floor. And then we'll find out which of us was right...this was only round 1.

I am interested to see what you think will happen.

ljb5
05-16-2010, 02:29 PM
My mouth is just fine. Perhaps you shouldn't demean others integrity, and expect nothing in return.



You reap what you sow.

If you have to lie about my position in order to attack me, the problem is not with my integrity, but with yours.

I have not said anything in support of federal employees watching porn at work.

If you claim I have, you're lying.

If you have to lie in order to attack me, you just don't have a viable line of attack.

As long as you continue to lie, I will continue to impugn your integrity.

If you're concerned about attacks on your integrity, the best course of action for you would be to STOP LYING, rather than to escalate your lies.

BrianW
05-16-2010, 07:33 PM
You started it Nancy. Don't like it, don't start it.

ljb5
05-16-2010, 07:55 PM
You started it Nancy. Don't like it, don't start it.

You stop lying about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you.

Do you understand the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth?

BrianW
05-17-2010, 07:40 AM
Do you understand the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth?

Usually, unless it's coming from you.

Phillip Allen
05-17-2010, 08:09 AM
have you ever seen anything so childish?

BrianW
05-17-2010, 10:36 AM
Well... yeah. Guilty as charged, but not sorry. ;)

Phillip Allen
05-17-2010, 10:39 AM
I wasn't talking about you Brian...

BrianW
05-17-2010, 10:48 AM
Thanks. But...

I did pull the old 'when didya stop beating your wife' routine on ljb in this thread. It was so blatantly obvious, that only someone looking for a reason to whine would consider it an honest question. Naturally, that's exactly what happened. ;)

Oh well, got more important things to worry about than that.

Ian McColgin
05-17-2010, 12:41 PM
The more important lesson is choices of trade-offs. All parliamentary systems - from Roberts to the thousands of different procedures adopted by the thousands of different legislatures around the world at village, city, county, state, province, or nation levels - have processes for bringing matters towards a vote and of modifying them. These can be exploited by astute parliamentarians to hold power, thwart a majority, reward a friend.

All sides use parliamentary maneuver. The extreme right through history has a firmer history of using parliamentary legerdemain to thwart or block while the pragmatist of wealth use those tactics to more broadly maintain establishment wealth. Radicals in history, when they didn't just seize the nation like after the French or Russian revolutions, have tended to get isolated grand gestures through, many of which like the Volstead Act end badly. Liberals could be said to fritter away whatever power they find by trying to make reasonable compromises with opponents more remorselessly committed.

In this case, the conservative side used a parliamentary method I frankly think is stupid to have in Congress, the ability to make amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. Defenders of this amendment process point out that without it the ability to craft working compromises in a bicameral non-parliamentary legislature is much diminished. For this case, naturally liberals want to spotlight the exact measure the conservatives used because it really looks silly and hypocritical. They also rightly spotlight all the places the Republican could have modified the bill, in some cases did and in others the bill was modeled on prior Republican options, before they added a poison pill.

When a measure turns on a pure parliamentary poison pill, the minority that slipped the pill in rarely is addressing any legitimate ideological or practical problems with the bill, but are rather seeking advantage from thwarting the majority as a general strategy. That's their right. The majority, if they've the taste for it, can both pass the measure and make the minority look really bad. That's their call.

ljb5
05-17-2010, 09:24 PM
I did pull the old 'when didya stop beating your wife' routine on ljb in this thread.

Yes, that is a reasonable approximation of what you did. And it is dishonest, even if you think obviousness is an excuse.

I'm glad that I was correct in my assumption that you would have the decency to (eventually) retract it.


It was so blatantly obvious, that only someone looking for a reason to whine would consider it an honest question.

If it were just you and me on this thread, I might grant your point and laugh it off. But when Brad and Phillip start parroting your little joke.... and they're too stupid to know it's a joke... I don't feel bad at all sticking up for myself.

I suppose there may have been a chance there for your to say something earlier... but I suppose you think the subtle dishonesty of letting them carry out your attack is excused for some reason.

Phillip Allen
05-18-2010, 09:13 AM
pityful...