Minority rights on Capitol Hill [Archive]

Norman Bernstein

01-02-2007, 02:43 PM

For anyone who needs a good laugh:

A MISGUIDED VICTIM COMPLEX.... To add a bookend to the previous post (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010502.php), Justin Rood noted (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002257.php) that the 110th Congress hasn't even officially begun, but several House Republicans have already started feeling sorry for themselves.

In a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated to fellow Republicans, three House GOPers are trying to push a "Minority Bill of Rights" -- based on a two-year-old proposal by then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). You can read the letter here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/gop-minority/).
"Unfortunately, as you are well aware, the Democrats' forty-year reign over the House was plagued by consistent, systematic efforts to usurp the rights and privileges of the Republican minority," write Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Tom Price (R-GA).

I'm afraid on the hypocrisy-o-meter, these three just buried the needle.

Two years ago, Nancy Pelosi and other House Dems proposed some modest measures that would improve the democratic process on the Hill: bills would only come to the floor after open committee hearings, lawmakers would be able to offer amendments to bills, and members would have at least 24 hours to actually look at legislation before being asked to vote on it.

What happened in response to Pelosi's written request? Dennis Hastert blew it off (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A680-2004Jun23.html) and refused to even acknowledge the correspondence.

johnw

01-02-2007, 03:37 PM

Still might be a good idea. After all, the Dems say they want to reintroduce comity to the chamber. I'm guessing Pelosi will delay a couple weeks to make them sweat, then enact this thing.

PatCox

01-02-2007, 03:43 PM

Gander, meet Sauce.

ljb5

01-02-2007, 04:29 PM

Sounds like a decent idea.... but my gosh that's a lot of snotty-nosed whining!

"...we can only expect that the Democrats will return to their old abusive ways...."

That's a lot of snot for a Republican to be throwing around.

If only there were some type of catchy phrase we could repeatedly yell at them like, "Get used to it".... or something like that.

Maybe we could invent a term like "political capital" to justify screwing them.

johnw

01-02-2007, 05:26 PM

"...we can only expect that the Democrats will return to their old abusive ways...."

I think it's called projective identification in the psychiatric community.

Norman Bernstein

01-02-2007, 05:43 PM

I think it's called projective identification in the psychiatric community.

*lol* We get a great deal of that here in the bilge! :D

Cuyahoga Chuck

01-02-2007, 05:56 PM

If Nancy Pelosi has any sense she will let the Neocons do whatever strange dance they prefer. They are, after all, their own worst enemy.

Garrett Lowell

01-03-2007, 07:03 AM

From today's Washington Post.

A Fairer House
But not quite yet.

Wednesday, January 3, 2007; A18

THE NEW Democratic House majority has an ambitious plan for its first 100 hours in power, from increasing the minimum wage to strengthening ethics rules to having the federal government negotiate prescription drug prices. Unfortunately, its plans don't include getting those provisions passed in the democratic fashion that the Democrats promised to adhere to once in the majority. When Republicans took over in 1995, they at least went through the motions of putting their "Contract With America" proposals through the normal committee process. Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have decided not to bother with that, nor to let Republicans offer amendments on the floor, nor even to put a GOP alternative up for a vote. This is exactly the kind of high-handed mistreatment that Democrats complained about, justifiably, when they were in the minority.

Democrats offer various rationales for their about-face. They say the streamlined process is necessary because they've pledged to accomplish so much in their first 100 legislative hours. But what makes living up to that self-imposed deadline -- which will stretch on for weeks, in any event -- more important than living up to their promise of procedural fairness? And why, even if that deadline is sacrosanct, couldn't Republicans at least be offered an opportunity to offer alternatives on the floor?

Democrats also argue that their proposals have been fully vetted and debated, but in fact many of them involve complex policy choices and some are new proposals. Democrats howled when Republicans moved unilaterally to change the rules governing the operations of the House ethics committee; why is it different for them to move unilaterally to change ethics rules? Questions such as whether the minimum wage increase should be combined with tax breaks for small businesses and whether the federal government should be the only party negotiating Medicare prescription prices ought to be put up for discussion and a vote. If that causes a fracture in the Democratic caucus, so be it.

Republicans, who were only too happy to strong-arm and ignore Democrats when the GOP was in the majority, are now, of course, moaning about being abused. In a nice bit of political theater, they plan to offer Ms. Pelosi's own "Minority Bill of Rights" from 2004, which would provide for, among other things, "open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process."

Democrats say that they'll adhere to their previous promises once their first flurry of business is finished. We look forward to that. But if they don't reconsider, they will set an unfortunate precedent that fairness will be offered on sufferance, when the majority finds it convenient, and not as a matter of principle. That would not be a good start for the 110th Congress.

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 08:13 AM

Democrats say that they'll adhere to their previous promises once their first flurry of business is finished. We look forward to that. But if they don't reconsider, they will set an unfortunate precedent that fairness will be offered on sufferance, when the majority finds it convenient, and not as a matter of principle. That would not be a good start for the 110th Congress.

The words 'hypocrite' and 'politician' are probably synonymous, so none of this should be surprising.

However, the same synonym probaby applies to conservative op-ed writers who are writing about this now, rather than back when the Dems were the minority and making concrete proposals for minority rights.

It's a bipartisan thing, obviously. The real test will be to see if Pelosi follows through, after they make whatever initial moves they've waited eight years to make. If she does, it wil still be to her credit. If she doesn't, than it's no worse than 'politics as usual'.

High C

01-03-2007, 08:33 AM

...THE NEW Democratic House majority has an ambitious plan for its first 100 hours in power, from increasing the minimum wage to strengthening ethics rules to having the federal government negotiate prescription drug prices. Unfortunately, its plans don't include getting those provisions passed in the democratic fashion...

Symbolic fluff. The Senate won't give it a second glance, and the President wouldn't sign it. They're off to a crawling start.

At least we know where they stand. Pelosi has already made it clear that things will return to the way they were when the Dems held the majority in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s, allowing the minority no role whatsoever. Bob Michel really sharpened his golf game in those days. They'd do well to accord the Reps the same generous degree of participation that was accorded them when the shoe was on the other foot, but I see that their unquenchable thirst for power has kept them from learning anything about bipartisanship and effective governing.

I imagine we'll be treated to a healthy dose of spin claiming that the Reps treated the Dems similarly during the last 12 years. Such nonsense is part of today's climate of spin, to be expected, and laughed at.

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 08:52 AM

I imagine we'll be treated to a healthy dose of spin claiming that the Reps treated the Dems similarly during the last 12 years. Such nonsense is part of today's climate of spin, to be expected, and laughed at.

You're suggesting the the Reeps treated the Dems 'well' during the last 12 years, since 1994? That they respected minority rights, and Pelosi is planning to treat them worse? That Hastert didn't ignore Pelosi's proposal for minority rights?

Yup, it's a spin all right... just not quite the spin you think you're referring to. Yup, it's nonsense...and I'm already laughing.

Keith Wilson

01-03-2007, 09:17 AM

They'd do well to accord the Reps the same generous degree of participation that was accorded them when the shoe was on the other foot, And the amazing thing is that HighC appears to actually believe that there was a "generous degree of participation". Pelosi's proposal seems pretty reasonable; I think they should pass it and make it ironclad enough that would require a supermajority to change it, but if the Democrats were to do things as they've been done for the last eight years, they'd pretend that the Republicans don't even exist. "Did I hear something? No, it's just one of the godless traitorous liberals babbling away again."

High C

01-03-2007, 09:23 AM

You're suggesting the the Reeps treated the Dems 'well' during the last 12 years, since 1994? That they respected minority rights, and Pelosi is planning to treat them worse? That Hastert didn't ignore Pelosi's proposal for minority rights?...

The Dems enjoyed far more inclusion as minority during the last 12 years than did the Reps when they were the minority previously. Pelosi didn't want minority rights. She already had them. She wanted minority control. Dems whined like babies the whole time, not understanding what it means to be the minority. You know what it means in the House? It means you really have no say in anything. That's the constitutional structure of the body. You want minority party party rights? Look to the Senate. I'd should think that would be obvious to a true independent.

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 09:39 AM

The Dems enjoyed far more inclusion as minority during the last 12 years than did the Reps when they were the minority previously. Pelosi didn't want minority rights. She already had them. She wanted minority control. Dems whined like babies the whole time, not understanding what it means to be the minority. You know what it means in the House? It means you really have no say in anything. That's the constitutional structure of the body. You want minority party party rights? Look to the Senate. I'd should think that would be obvious to a true independent.

Ahhh, I get it... you think these things are unreasonable, right?

Two years ago, Nancy Pelosi and other House Dems proposed some modest measures that would improve the democratic process on the Hill: bills would only come to the floor after open committee hearings, lawmakers would be able to offer amendments to bills, and members would have at least 24 hours to actually look at legislation before being asked to vote on it.

Your suggestion that the Reeps treated the Dems better during the past 12 years than the Reeps were treated in the years before that is unsupportable..... it's just partisan spin.

Furthermore, the idea that YOU would suggest to me that it would be 'obvious to the true independent' is a joke, right? It's obvious to YOU, but you're sure as hell no independnt... how the hell would YOU know what an independent thinks is obvious?:D

High C

01-03-2007, 09:58 AM

...you're sure as hell no independnt...

Neither are you. You may be registered thusly, yet you post thread after thread hyping the Democrat line on countless topics.

You're not an Independent, you're a coward. Admit who you are, a partisan hack. And spare us the holier than thou attitude. You are a pure Democrat propagandist. Though you amusingly believe it does, your independence grants you no shield from criticism. :rolleyes:

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 10:06 AM

You're not an Independent, you're a coward.

You don't know Jack Sh#t about me, HighC, so any judgments you may make about me personally simply reflect on what kind of person YOU are.

Though you amusingly believe it does, your independence grants you no shield from criticism. :rolleyes:

Criticize all you like! I'll do the same to you, as well.

Bruce Hooke

01-03-2007, 10:06 AM

And you, High C, are among the half-dozen or so most conservative people I have encountered in my entire life so to hear you lecturing about what makes someone an independant is downright laughable.

High C

01-03-2007, 10:07 AM

High C

01-03-2007, 10:07 AM

And you, High C, are among the half-dozen or so most conservative people I have encountered in my entire life...

You do live in a narrow world.

erster

01-03-2007, 10:09 AM

You don't know Jack Sh#t about me,

It goes something like this in the real world.
You are what you eat.

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 10:16 AM

It goes something like this in the real world.
You are what you eat.

Ahh, the bivalve pipes up.

You enjoy those protozoa and diatoms you filter out of the water, do ya?

Bruce Hooke

01-03-2007, 10:19 AM

You do live in a narrow world.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I certainly live in a liberal part of the country. On the other hand, I have visited almost every state in the union, and quite a few countries overseas. This forum has also exposed me to a diversity of opinions. If you think that you are in the middle of the political mainstream in this country that I'd suggest that it is you who lives in a narrow world.

John of Phoenix

01-03-2007, 10:22 AM

:D I swear if it weren't for the Kool Aid Snorting Neocons, I'd never have a decent belly laugh. :D

erster

01-03-2007, 10:24 AM

I make no claims different to what I am and pretend to be something other than what I am either. You cannot say the same thing. When you post 7000 more posts that have a different political slant on it, we will then be able to conclude that you will have removed the sign that states you are a radical leftwing Democrat. Prove me wrong.

TomF

01-03-2007, 10:25 AM

You do live in a narrow world.I find that disturbing.

I like you, JT, especially when we talk about music. But like Bruce, I'd be hard pressed to think of other folks I've met who are politically further to the R, yet still understand themselves to be within the mainstream.

My sampling includes a few years of work with cabinet ministers who described themselves and their government as the furthest R in Canada. It's why I eventually stopped working for them.

Are there truly significant numbers of "mainstream" (i.e. not neo-nazis or reclusive militarists) folks politically much further to the R in your part of the world?

High C

01-03-2007, 10:26 AM

...If you think that you are in the middle of the political mainstream in this country that I'd suggest that it is you who lives in a narrow world.

Did I say that?

What I said was that Norman is a coward for not belonging to the party which is so obviously a part of his DNA. He, like so many other Independents, thinks it puts him beyond criticism, not responsible for the sins of his fellow travelers. He thinks he can take his cheap shots from the sidelines with impunity because he's an Independent. Pffft :rolleyes:

He's wrong.

erster

01-03-2007, 10:36 AM

You don't know Jack Sh#t about me, HighC, so any judgments you may make about me personally simply reflect on what kind of person YOU are.

Criticize all you like! I'll do the same to you, as well.

Norman, you get bent out of shape when anyone challenges you with your daily, weekly, monthly and yearly C&P consistant to one train of thought. Your popoff valve is rated at no more than room temperature. You continue ask for imput. When you get imput unfavorable, you carry on like a four year old that has had someone take their own lollipop away from them. Just stop making the claims that you are an independant. You do not live your life, according to what you post as an independant thinker with the slants that you provide, no matter how many websites you claim that you read. None of those websites ever provide you any material to

create thought and critical thinking around here.

This forum is already full of ones that buy into your C&P. So if you are asking for some imput, what type of imput do you suggest that you feel would be benefical to discussing the issues, more of the same? JT and a few others express their opinions and all you do is just attack and call people names.

High C

01-03-2007, 10:38 AM

...I like you, JT, especially when we talk about music. But like Bruce, I'd be hard pressed to think of other folks I've met who are politically further to the R, yet still understand themselves to be within the mainstream...

And I you, Tom, but you and Bruce have both just admitted that you live in worlds where you rarely encounter Conservatives. I have lived in many places in the Southern US and can assure you that my views are indeed mainstream in this region. I also remind you both that most American Presidents in my lifetime have come from this region. We wield substantial economic and political power. This is not an isolated outpost, it is a large, significant chunk of the nation.

I know full well that much of the world, and much of my own country is very much politically liberal, but I can't imagine saying that those of you who are so are rare creatures. I know better.

S.V. Airlie

01-03-2007, 10:39 AM

SPIT...SPIT..SPLAT.

Maybe I'm wrong, I am willing to wait to see what the dems do before I throw darts, innuendos,
I can't determine what I would say, how I feel, or how I would say it before the events, proposed legislation, the voting takes place...
The gun is cocked but there is currently no bullet in the chamber

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 10:43 AM

Did I say that?

What I said was that Norman is a coward for not belonging to the party which is so obviously a part of his DNA.

Now you know what my DNA is like?

Hells bells, I didn't know you were a research biologist!

I'll take a pass on being called a coward... I've been called worse, and it says one hell of a lot more about YOU, HighC, who goes around calling people cowards while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Would I be rude in calling you a hypocrite?

S.V. Airlie

01-03-2007, 10:46 AM

Damn.. if this thread was my first introduction to the WBF, I'd say it was inhabited by a bunch of 10 year olds... I turned 11....and it is a new year..2007...
Come on.. enough...

Keith Wilson

01-03-2007, 10:48 AM

Norman Bernstein

01-03-2007, 10:53 AM

My goodness, isn't this edifying. :rolleyes:

Back to the original issue. The Republicans are advocating a rule change, now that they are in the minority, which they opposed when they were in the majority. Arguing from this that the Democratic majority is somehow treating the Republicans worse is not logically consistent. If it's a good idea now, why wasn't it a good idea then?

Thank you, Keith.. at least ONE person is able to see the reason why I posted the C&P.

So many others simply preferred to use my post as an attack launching pad :D

S.V. Airlie

01-03-2007, 10:53 AM

Keith.. just maybe the general voting public saw this and decided they were tirred of it.. Maybe as a whole, the voting public began to wonder whether their elected officials were more interested in their personal agendas than the agendas of those who vote..?
We tech elect our representatives. If those we elect spend more time bickering, and less time actually doing anything..well, there is gonna be a cchane or there should be.
Politics should not be a voacation.. It should be an avocation. When one leaves office, there should be a life waiting for him.... And not as a lobbyist...
I really am tired of this....

Osborne Russell

01-03-2007, 11:11 AM

And I you, Tom, but you and Bruce have both just admitted that you live in worlds where you rarely encounter Conservatives. I have lived in many places in the Southern US and can assure you that my views are indeed mainstream in this region. I also remind you both that most American Presidents in my lifetime have come from this region. We wield substantial economic and political power. This is not an isolated outpost, it is a large, significant chunk of the nation.

I know full well that much of the world, and much of my own country is very much politically liberal, but I can't imagine saying that those of you who are so are rare creatures. I know better.

Now you're making fun of the rest of us.

huisjen

01-03-2007, 11:13 AM

Does anyone need a refill on throwing mud yet? You seem to be using it up pretty quickly...

"Argueing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

Dan

Bruce Hooke

01-03-2007, 11:21 AM

My apologies for getting involved in the discussion about who's mainstream and who is not. I can see now that it is going nowhere fast.

Cuyahoga Chuck

01-03-2007, 11:30 AM

This is a bald-faced attempt to destroy the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives by causing them to laugh so hard they injure themselves.
Have no fear. Nancy Pelosi has already notified the Capital medical establishment to set up a MASH unit to care for any Democrats who are so injured.
There will be a counter attack by REp. Henry Waxman (D. Cal.) who has the power to investigate anyone for any reason forever. A whiff of a jail cell will certainly encourage these Neocons upstarts to spend more of their waking hours contemplating their navels.

"Cruel and unusual? You bet!"

elf

01-03-2007, 11:47 AM

the whole question of mainstream in the US is very interesting, actually. Since the Dems made a pact with the south a long time ago and have been attempting to keep that pact intact every since by moving away from the left, the center has also been moving rightwards as well, such that now there are, in my opinion, hardly any progressive Dems left, most of them having slid to slightly right of center.

So as far as I can see, we now have a centrist congress with a large number of Dems and small number of Repugs who can go either way on any vote.

At most there are probably 10 Dems down there now who actually truck in any way with anything I consider Democratic.

So I don't hold out much hope for progress socially or economically in the country at this point. Neither in the next 2 years, nor in the following 50.

As long as economic growth is the primary goal of congress, our complete spectrum of problems with grow also, as far as I'm concerned.

garyspear

01-03-2007, 11:47 AM

has this thread changed anyones opinon?

come on folks.

wonderfully said Dan.

Cuyahoga Chuck

01-03-2007, 12:46 PM

"Symbolic fluff. "
The "symbolic fluff" is the bait in the trap.
All the Dems have to do is offer up bills that have broad support of the population. Once they have done that they have made their point. If the president doesn't sign on he is cutting the legs out from under his party, particularly, in the next presidential election.
Tidbits like, "we tried to give you a single-provider drug plan and the president vetoed it" shouldn't be hard to understand. Or, "we tried to give you X,Y or Z but, the president has spent the money on his war" could work as well. These phrases are not as concise and as pithy as "cut and run" but you don't have to be genious to understand them.
Anyway, we haven't even heard the overture yet.

johnw

01-03-2007, 02:07 PM

Symbolic fluff. The Senate won't give it a second glance, and the President wouldn't sign it. They're off to a crawling start.

At least we know where they stand. Pelosi has already made it clear that things will return to the way they were when the Dems held the majority in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s, allowing the minority no role whatsoever. Bob Michel really sharpened his golf game in those days. They'd do well to accord the Reps the same generous degree of participation that was accorded them when the shoe was on the other foot, but I see that their unquenchable thirst for power has kept them from learning anything about bipartisanship and effective governing.

I imagine we'll be treated to a healthy dose of spin claiming that the Reps treated the Dems similarly during the last 12 years. Such nonsense is part of today's climate of spin, to be expected, and laughed at.

Why wouldn't he sign these bills? Is it not a good idea to negotiate prices with the drug companies?

And how can they be off to a crawling start when they aren't yet in session?

Of course, if the Dems lock the Rips out of participation, then they will
"accord the Reps the same generous degree of participation that was accorded them when the shoe was on the other foot."

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Gonzalo

01-03-2007, 03:02 PM

You know what it means in the House? It means you really have no say in anything. That's the constitutional structure of the body. You want minority party party rights? Look to the Senate. (emphasis mine)

Actually, the constitution empowers each house to set its own rules in most regards. Neither house is required constitutionally to limit minority participation. (Or grant it, for that matter.) The House of Representatives can change its rules to promote majority party dominance or collegiality as it sees fit. Historically it has chosen majority party dominance, but it isn't required to.

From Article 1, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

I'd expect Pelosi to allow some some minor changes limiting the powers of the majority party, but I won't hold my breath waiting for much collegiality whichever party is in control. In the House, especially, the priority is nearly always party advantage first, the country second.

Gonzalo

01-03-2007, 03:05 PM

Why wouldn't he sign these bills? Is it not a good idea to negotiate prices with the drug companies? It is a much better idea to stay on the good side of the drug companies, who are very generous campaign donors for the Republicans.

John of Phoenix

01-03-2007, 03:21 PM

dubya got his gronicles whacked in November for his Iraq "policy". The primary element of his "New Way Forward in Iraq" is to send 30,000 more troops into the meat grinder - quite the opposite to what the election and every recent poll indicates the public wants.

What power the dems don't now have will soon be handed to them by dubya himself. Long live "Stay the Course".

Nicholas Carey

01-03-2007, 07:34 PM

The Dems enjoyed far more inclusion as minority during the last 12 years than did the Reps when they were the minority previously. Pelosi didn't want minority rights. She already had them. She wanted minority control. Dems whined like babies the whole time, not understanding what it means to be the minority. You know what it means in the House? It means you really have no say in anything. That's the constitutional structure of the body. You want minority party party rights? Look to the Senate. I'd should think that would be obvious to a true independent.Constitutional structure?

Please provide a single citation in the Constitution that even mentions the notion of a political party -- in any context.

Congressmen and women -- Senators and Representatives both -- represent states and districts, respectively, in the Congress of the United States. They do not represent -- legally -- in any way shape or form a political party.

That the parties have co-opted the system and writ themselves into both law and the rules of the Congress is the essential problem with politics that we see manifested.

High C

01-03-2007, 10:08 PM

...That the parties have co-opted the system and writ themselves into both law and the rules of the Congress is the essential problem with politics that we see manifested.

There have always been always idealogical majorities and minorities, whether formalized by the creation of parties, or not.
These bodies have evolved within Constitutional guidelines to bring us to this point.

My point is that the Senate is the body where the minority has greater power. The idea that our Representatives would not organize themselves along idealogical lines is not realistic.

BrianW

01-03-2007, 11:00 PM

mdh

01-04-2007, 12:56 AM

With such slim majorities as are held, and the veto power, you would think that if the politicians really want to fix anything, they'd be wery willing to work together. However, if all they want to do is posture or ram their agenda down us, the general public will recognize and reward this likewise.

On the subject of minimum wage, I believe, this is a matter to be considered at the state level.

Norman Bernstein

01-04-2007, 06:36 AM

I thought this was going to be a thread about Congresswoman Mckinney, instead it's another boring Norman C&P about how bad republicans are, and how glorious democrats are.

Wonder why we don't see more C&P articles about Independents, from a self-proclaimed Independent?

If there actually were any such articles, I'd C&P them. However, in today's polarized politics, such things don't exist. Apparently, the only place moderates and independents exist is in the voting public.... as the 2006 election proved, neither party can claim this big block of votes as their own, and neither party's 'base' is big enough to actually control the outcome of elections.

However, this thread (in case you missed it) was about the fact that congressional 'minority rights' that Pelosi proposed back when the Reeps were in power are now suddenly important, whereas when the Reeps pulled the strings, they couldn't have cared less. It's a clearly documented case of political hypocrisy.... although in one sense, you're right: nothing unusual about political hypocrisy, from either side of the aisle. I posted it only because I got tired of listening to people call the Dems 'whiners', when in this case, it's clearly the Reeps who are doing the whining.