Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

[madison2000]

y Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."

Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. One party state fascism

is what it is called.

[havocmom]

2. Note to congressional DEMS: Grow spines and stop rolling over thinking

that will inspire the GOP into governing with the interests of the nation in mind. The current GOP leaders will never co-operate, act rationally or put national concerns before the interests of their masters. No demonstrations of bi-partisanship for the greater good will make the point with the students of Newt. Don't even try.

Now is not the time for turning other cheek. As my ol momma used to say, "You only have 4 of them. After that, you had better dig in and defend yourself!"

There is a war going on and it is NOT civil. Congressional DEMS ALL need to accept that and fight for America on the hill or the rest of us will have to do it in the streets. That will not be pretty.

[whistle]

3. So, the republican majority policy then removes all choice . . .

. . . from republican house and senate representatives. No republican will be allowed to vote to pass any bill which the party leaders oppose. That is a total negation of free choice and failure by the republican party to allow representation of all of the people from each voting district. This can not be allowed to stand. By what right does a political party hold elected representatives to such an agreement?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. Apparently, through fear and manipulation,

which has become the standard form for the Republican leadership. First, they rig it so House leaders who're indicted don't lose their posts (to help Tom DeLay), and then this. Power for power's sake it seems.

[MichiganVote]

4. So functionally, anyone w/a Dem rep has no representation

Why these rules appealed to the Supreme Court?

[fortyfeetunder]

5. The Ukranians are probably laughing at us now

Looking at the US taking this in the shorts and doing close to nothing about it.

[wryter2000]

6. WTF

Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against.

The idjit means that's the opposite of what Democrats did. Thanks for making it sound as if we're just as bad, pal.

[beetle2]

12. NO SIR,

that IS what the dems did in 1993, the NAFTA vote was only an exception to the rule because President Clinton pushed so hard it, and the congressional Dem leaders didn't have the nads to defy Clinton. Shame on us for allowing our leaders in congress to act like this back then.

[wryter2000]

18. Right

I wasn't taking a stand on NAFTA one way or the other. All I was saying is that the author states, in essence, "the democrats behaved in the same autocratic, partisan way by doing a bipartisan thing." Maybe something was snipped out of the original article that I missed.

BTW, I'm neither a "sir," nor an idjit.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Let me get this straight: dems can independently draft their own

bills and present them to Hastert. But Hastert does not have to introduce them to the House floor, even if they will be defeate by the republican majority vote. He can pick and choose by party alone which bill even theoretically can become law.

Was I asleep when the Enabling Act of 2004 was passed?

[imenja]

9. Republicans are now their own opposition

The downside is that we have become completely irrelevant in Washington. The upside is that Republicans are becoming the opposition--and thus the obstructionists--of the president's agenda. Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part, but I hope they self-destruct and therefore pave the way for a Democratic victory in the mid-term elections, particularly on the issue of the Republicans refusing to reform the intelligence system because of turf battles.
Of course, the Dem's still need to get their act together.

[lonestarnot]

10. Taxation Without Representation

Black Box tea party...black boxes into the lake!

[newyawker99]

17. Hi lonestarnot!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jwirr]

11. I have already suggested

that if and when they truly stop Democratic Representatives/Senators from participation in the process that the Democrat leaders simply in-mass walk out to form a "congress in exile". They would take up the business of the country from "exile" creating bills, giving speeches, issuing press releases in opposition to what the repugs on the hill are doing. The only time they would appear in congress would be to vote "no" against any repug bill that goes against what we believe in. They would show their opposition in two ways: by creating a government in exile and by voting "no" to measures we do not want. It may end up being the only thing they can do BUT they need to wait until it is obvious that they will not be giving any voice in the process. In the Senate this cannot happen as long as they have the right to filibuster. If that is taken away then walk.

[beetle2]

14. This is an example of what is wrong with us Democrats

you see, there are so many people in our party who think we should just react to the repubs. We can never be the great hope of this nation if all we do is issue press releases opposing what the repubs are doing, and voting no to their bills.
We must become the party that everyone else response to. When the world is reacting to us, we are strong, when we are just reacting to them, we are not only weak, but everyone sees how weak we are.
This aplies to us little people to. If we are going around crying about "bush did this, the republicans did that", we look like, well like crybabies. We must stop this and once again be the party of ideas, compassion, leadership, and every great thing about the Democratic party. Talk about what being a Democrat means, not how mean the repugs are. People will listen to ideas, not to attacks.

[jwirr]

15. "Become" is the operative word/

until then we are the minority party for the next four years. Aside from violence how do you propose to get and hold the media/peoples attention? It is the people who need to protest in the streets but the elected Democrats are in a great position to protest as congresspersons. We need to provide a counter to the measures that repugs are taking in the only way that is left to us at this time. In 2006 we should be in a position to give them hell both for what they will do and what we did in the meantime. We can set in there giving speeches when they let us have the floor after the session closes and letting them push us out of every decision or we can say "go to hell" by taking action even if the action is walking out as a group. By walking out we can show the world what OUR government would have looked like if voters had used their heads. We can educate and protest at the same time. If we do nothing then we are admitting defeat. If we do not vote we are opening ourselves up to the charge that we were not there so it isn't their fault. Every time the repugs make a move we need to comment/act on it and set the world straight on the difference between us and them but no one is going to listen if it is just business as usual. How are you going to do this? Yes we need to change our party image but that will take time. We have a situation in congress right NOW - we are being pushed out of committee action, denied any voice and threatened with further isolations and we do not have the votes to stop them. Our votes can only work to show that we were against passing the asinine bills. If our Democrats vote no on the Iraq war and Patriot Act we would have been much better off. Because we would not be sharing the blame. We need to act outside the system if we are going to be heard if they will not let us act within.

[muchacho]

16. bipartisan my ass

the true naked aggression is displayed...again!

[Maguzzi]

19. Get used to it.....

What do you expect them to do with control over everything. This is
what you get for votin republican. Unfortunately, you just have to
wait until they screw up so bad that it effects people in their
living room. Give it 2 to 4 years. Just have a laugh about it,
nothing else to do.