Democrats renege on "bipartisanship" campaign pledges

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784.html

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.
Click to expand...

Another campaign promise fulfilled only the way the big two corrupt political parties can do it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Another campaign promise fulfilled only the way the big two corrupt political parties can do it.[/QUOTE]
This shit has to stop at some point. While part of me kinda likes the idea of throwing the Republican method of rule the past several years in their face, the more rational part of me thinks that I've had enough of politics as pro wrestling, of politics as a matter of dogmatic absolutism and an unwillingness to compromise, and this shortsightedness that just perpetuates the national cultural divide.

Not to mention it makes me sick to my stomach to hear all of the complaints that will come forth (from both sides):

Democrats: you started it!
Republicans: no fair!

And, of course, they switch scripts the next time they switch majority/minority position.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This shit has to stop at some point. While part of me kinda likes the idea of throwing the Republican method of rule the past several years in their face, the more rational part of me thinks that I've had enough of politics as pro wrestling, of politics as a matter of dogmatic absolutism and an unwillingness to compromise, and this shortsightedness that just perpetuates the national cultural divide.

Not to mention it makes me sick to my stomach to hear all of the complaints that will come forth (from both sides):

Democrats: you started it!
Republicans: no fair!

And, of course, they switch scripts the next time they switch majority/minority position.[/QUOTE]

I'm of two minds. On one hand, cooperation is good. Bipartisanship is good. Getting back to pre-Clinton impeachment concepts of how the government should run is good.

On the other, when did this administration suddenly become very interested in compromise? The instant they couldn't get everything they wanted. Yes, running things the way the Republican houses have over the last eight years is damning ... but shit, that means the Dems have eight years of crap to make up for. I'd say they're allowed at least a little while to swing the pendulum back into the center. We just have to make sure it doesn't over-swing.

I'm also not sure that either side really understands "compromise" as it would best suit the issues. "You can have minimum wage, but not stem cells" isn't the same as staking out a moderate position on both points.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784.html



Another campaign promise fulfilled only the way the big two corrupt political parties can do it.[/QUOTE]

I have a hard time caring about this, given that some Republicans have pre-announced their desire to use their minority status to block progress on anything rather than work with the Democrats to get some things done.

Let's face it, the Republicans have had no problem playing hardball and marginalizing the Democrats. Now they're whining? If they cared so much about minority party rights, maybe they should have done a better job respecting them when they were in charge.

In other words: Waaaaaaaah.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And, of course, they switch scripts the next time they switch majority/minority position.[/quote]

The two parties are actually literally switching scripts.

Today, a group of GOP lawmakers is scheduled to propose a "Minority Bill of Rights," based on Democratic language written in 2004, which would guarantee the minority [party] the right to offer amendments or substitutes to bills, something the Democrats are not permitting in the first few weeks of the new Congress.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201174.html
 
The article sounds like the Dems are only saying they will limit debate for the first 100 hours for that first burst of legislation they promised (and a majority of Americans support). If they didn't do this, I can't see them passing half of their proposals. Hell, Brownback is already threatening a filibuster on stem cell research.

I don't think they are planning to permanently shut out Republicans.
 
Republicans did nothing to legitimately raise minimum wage, cut interest rates on college loans, advancing stem cell research, etc. without it being tied to some wacky clause benefitting the rich even more, so the Democrats need to ignore them for now.
 
From the article:
Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.

"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."
 
i voted dem to get those theocratic fucks. good for dems for not takeing shit. at some point they should give balance, but not right at the begining. its like 1 min of sex. no one wants that. you want your first time in a while to last dont you?
 
fuck the GOP. The Dems were Bipartisan for 40 years. It was the repubs to slammed the door shut once they got power. While I am glad the rule changes aren't permanent, it is good to give the GOP a taste of their own medicine.

Besides, most Republicans lack empathy so you have to actually give them a taste of being a shut out minority before they really understand it.
 
Payback is a bitch. Time for the GOP to lube up. :D

It's not like it's forever. At least they have a timetable. The shoe is on the other foot and they have no reason to bitch. All of the Dem's pet projects are going to get passed and then they can get down to brass tacks.
 
I keep hearing on the news story after story about how the Democrats are going back on their promise to act in a bipartisan manner, and I have to ask: when precisely DID the Democrats promise to be bipartisan? The main promise I remember was oversight over the executive branch.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The article sounds like the Dems are only saying they will limit debate for the first 100 hours for that first burst of legislation they promised (and a majority of Americans support). If they didn't do this, I can't see them passing half of their proposals. Hell, Brownback is already threatening a filibuster on stem cell research.

I don't think they are planning to permanently shut out Republicans.[/QUOTE]

Well, the Senate rules aren't as changeable as the House rules. If Brownback wants to filibuster something, there is no committee the Senate leadership can go to to get a rule that limits debate. So this is pretty much exclusively about the House, where rules are much more malleable.

The main point was that Democrats whined for 12 years while Republicans were in charge about how they were unfairly treated; promised before, during and after the election that they would restore integrity, ethics and fair play to the Congress, including respecting and working with the minority; and now for short-term political gain they are reneging on that particular campaign promise. I'm not surprised in the least, but you know, I don't like lies from anyone.
 
[quote name='usickenme']fuck the GOP.
...
Besides, most Republicans lack empathy so you have to actually give them a taste of being a shut out minority before they really understand it.[/QUOTE]

Wow, nice blanket, baseless attacks...oh wait, it's usickenme, no surprises here.

[quote name='usickenme']The Dems were Bipartisan for 40 years.[/quote]

BULLSHIT.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I keep hearing on the news story after story about how the Democrats are going back on their promise to act in a bipartisan manner, and I have to ask: when precisely DID the Democrats promise to be bipartisan? The main promise I remember was oversight over the executive branch.[/QUOTE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701838.html

[quote name='Nancy Pelosi']"Today the American people voted for change and they voted for Democrats to take our country in a new direction, and that is exactly what we intend to do," she said. "The American people voted for a new direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., and Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans."[/quote]
 
[quote name='elprincipe']BULLSHIT.[/QUOTE]

Actually, not really bullshit.

The Republican rule of Congress brought with it a number of new procedures that completely neutered the minority party, which up until then had some rights to effectively argue and alter legislation.

The Republican plan to end the filibuster when it came to votes on Presidential nominees is one prominent example. They also limited debate on bills, and obliterated the voting time limit (such as the vote on Medicare prescription drug legislation in 2003, when Republicans refused to shut off a House vote for three hours so they could twist arms and push the measure through just before sunrise), and in general muscled the Democrats out of having any say at all.

These are all Republican innovations, ElPrincipe. All enacted AFTER Democratic rule ended, and removing protections that Democrats had put in place to preserve minority party rights.

So if the Repubs now end up shafted by their own brutal disregard for minority party rights, I say call for a WAAAAAAAHHHmbulance.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Actually, not really bullshit.

The Republican rule of Congress brought with it a number of new procedures that completely neutered the minority party, which up until then had some rights to effectively argue and alter legislation.

The Republican plan to end the filibuster when it came to votes on Presidential nominees is one prominent example. They also limited debate on bills, and obliterated the voting time limit (such as the vote on Medicare prescription drug legislation in 2003, when Republicans refused to shut off a House vote for three hours so they could twist arms and push the measure through just before sunrise), and in general muscled the Democrats out of having any say at all.

These are all Republican innovations, ElPrincipe. All enacted AFTER Democratic rule ended, and removing protections that Democrats had put in place to preserve minority party rights.

So if the Repubs now end up shafted by their own brutal disregard for minority party rights, I say call for a WAAAAAAAHHHmbulance.[/QUOTE]

Actually, YES bullshit. Democrats weren't super-huggy-bipartisan folks before 1994. You think they never tinkered with the rules of the House to get things done the way they wanted? You are looking at their lengthy spell in the House majority through very large rose-colored glasses, if you are actually looking at all (which, given your statement above, I doubt).

That being said, there were obviously a few new lows achieved with Republicans in the majority (I believe that vote they held open you mention was a record, for example), and in no way am I apologizing for their politicking.

But again you aren't familiar with how the Senate works or its history since you seem to think the filibuster was a rule put into place by the Democrats as a protection for the minority, or that Democrats have never tried to circumvent the filibuster when they were in the majority, or that Democrats were "muscled out" of having any say. Actually, that last one goes for the House as well.
 
[quote name='Cormier6083']Why can't the Democrats go worship Satan and leave the Republicans alone.[/quote] Because they're too busy trying to figure out how to fix the fuck-ups in the past 6 years. ;)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, YES bullshit. Democrats weren't super-huggy-bipartisan folks before 1994. You think they never tinkered with the rules of the House to get things done the way they wanted? You are looking at their lengthy spell in the House majority through very large rose-colored glasses, if you are actually looking at all (which, given your statement above, I doubt).

That being said, there were obviously a few new lows achieved with Republicans in the majority (I believe that vote they held open you mention was a record, for example), and in no way am I apologizing for their politicking.

But again you aren't familiar with how the Senate works or its history since you seem to think the filibuster was a rule put into place by the Democrats as a protection for the minority, or that Democrats have never tried to circumvent the filibuster when they were in the majority, or that Democrats were "muscled out" of having any say. Actually, that last one goes for the House as well.[/QUOTE]

I think we're talking around the same point here.

I will agree that the Democrats have in the past worked the system to their advantage, as has every ruling party. (I'm thinking the pork-laden days of the 70s and 80s here, but I'm sure there are other examples.)

But given what you're saying, I think you agree that the Republicans pretty well gutted a system that, while subject to manipulation, at least preserved a number of substantial rights for the minority party (such as judicial holds and filibusters).

I would like you to back up your assertion that the Democrats tried to circumvent the filibuster in the past. I've never heard of ANY effort like the Republicans' to get rid of it entirely through an illegal rules maneuver. Not challenging you here, just would like to be better informed if that has happened.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I think we're talking around the same point here.

I will agree that the Democrats have in the past worked the system to their advantage, as has every ruling party. (I'm thinking the pork-laden days of the 70s and 80s here, but I'm sure there are other examples.)

But given what you're saying, I think you agree that the Republicans pretty well gutted a system that, while subject to manipulation, at least preserved a number of substantial rights for the minority party (such as judicial holds and filibusters).[/quote]

I don't know that I would agree "gutted" is the right word, but certainly holding votes open for hours while arm-twisting and certain other tactics employed were pretty low, some of which were unprecedented.

I would like you to back up your assertion that the Democrats tried to circumvent the filibuster in the past. I've never heard of ANY effort like the Republicans' to get rid of it entirely through an illegal rules maneuver. Not challenging you here, just would like to be better informed if that has happened.
Click to expand...

Sure, here's some background:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006383
The example most closely analogous occurred in March 1980, when Mr. Byrd mounted a charge to eliminate the possibility of a double filibuster--first on a motion to proceed to a nomination and then on a nomination itself. He wanted to push through the confirmation of Robert White as ambassador to El Salvador and, as Mr. Gold and Ms. Gupta explain, "this well established procedure presented potential difficulties."

And so Mr. Byrd moved to get rid of the first filibuster opportunity--debate on motions to proceed to nominations. GOP Senator Jesse Helms objected and the presiding officer ruled in Mr. Helms's favor. Mr. Byrd appealed, and the Senate voted 54-38 to overturn the chair. The rule change went into effect.
Click to expand...

And you are misinformed if you think Republicans wanted to get rid of it entirely. They merely wanted to get rid of it when proceeding on judicial nominations. Surely a large rule change, but not as large as you are suggesting.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, nice blanket, baseless attacks...oh wait, it's usickenme, no surprises here.



BULLSHIT.[/QUOTE]


I said most. Ya baby. At least I admit who I am instead of hiding.

speaking of baseless attacks.

[quote name='elprincipe']
BULLSHIT.[/QUOTE]

In comparison to the previous GOP controlled congress, they sure as hell were. Do some research (and not on conservative websites) , bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top