The Dems used to do the same things when they were in power

[LittleClarkie]

I've heard this comment made re: I think Tip O'Neill, that when the Democrats were in power, we used to ram legislation through in a similar fashion as the Republicans are now.

Is there any validity to that claim? If not, why not. I'd like to be prepared if someone comes at me with this claim if it is not true.

Thanks.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. You mean back when we had the Fairness Doctrine?

[rinsd]

2. Jim Wright was known to twist an arm or two (nt)

[cwrightmills]

3. Yup

Lyndon Johnson was one of the biggest political bullies ever.

[flowomo]

4. the party that rules, rules ruthlessly...

everywhere, always. Democrats stuck it to the GOP without reservation or regret for decades. Just the way the game is played.

[StClone]

5. Was the ends to our legislation as corrupt?

As that espoused by this litter of Republican demons?

[depakid]

6. No, the Dems DID NOT do the same thing

They never had anything (nor would have considered anything) remotely similar to "the K Street Project," they never would have threatened to axe the filibuster, they never purposefully (and once even forcefully) never froze Republicans out from committees when drafting legislation, they would never have violated 220 years of tradition and parliamentary procedure and kept a floor vote open for 3 1/2 hours in the middle of the night, while strong arming and bribing a congressman for a deciding vote- the list goes on.

Anyone who says that the Dems did the same thing:

1. Doesn't know anything about history (even recent history and civics); or

2. Is simply feeding you a load of cycical bull to cover for their own cognitive dissonance.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Thanks. I think the comment came in relation to the Patriot Act

That legislation was ramrodded through in the same fashion. Didn't seem right somehow, but I don't know legislative history.

How fast was the Pat Act shoved though, anyway. Fast enough I know so that Feingold seems to have been the only one who read the thing.

[sandnsea]

23. That was not ramrodded through

Parts of the Patriot Act were written by Democrats, parts that passed were things that Democrats wanted after OKCity and Pubs wouldn't put through. Kerry's money laundering, for example, the banks fought. Even Feingold has said that much of the Patriot Act is necessary, and I highly doubt as many people didn't know what was in it as they try to pretend. That was not a ramrodded bill. Medicare in the House, otoh, was. That 3 1/2 hour middle of the night voting session is the longest one in history, so that tells you something. Yes, Dems have done their fair share of dirty dealings, but it's usually been for things like the Civil Rights Act, not corporate give-aways.

[flowomo]

11. sorry, that's naive...

you cite some specific tactics and then claim the Dems never used "strongarm tactics." That's just false. They pushed Republicans to the irrelevant margins every chance they got. Good, bad -- you can decide for yourself. But that's the way the majority governs.

[depakid]

16. There'a qualitative difference

and if you can't see it, I suggest you look back at when the Dems controlled the house and review the procedures that the Dems followed and compare them to the procedures that the Republicans DO NOT follow- or simply abandon.

There are more instances of the Republicans abandoning long standing (as in, like 200+ year old rules that every Congress has lived by- regardless of who's in power) than I can recount.

Did the Dems ever do away with ethics rules to protect one of their own?

I don't think so. Ask Dan Rostenkowski or Jim Wright.

AND I didn't claimed that Dems never used strongarm tactics- what I claimed in essense was that Dems had the integrity to abide by the rules and processes that Congress has acted under ever since it began deliberating in earnest.

Republicans, on the other hand, DO NOT. That's an outrage and it's on the record.

They'll violate every rule, regulation, procedure or tradition to push through their agenda.

That in itself- is the difference. It has little to do with the substance of the legislation.

[ClassWarrior]

18. Thank you. And therein lies the Culture of Corruption.

NGU.

[spuddonna]

26. I absolutely agree...

I've watched the parlimentary proceedures tossed out the friggin' window since the Repugs took power.

Today's bulldozing of voting procedures to keep the vote open has been used before by Delay and Hastert to get the votes they want on issues that will bring their RNC backers $$$.

Sennsenbrenner's walking out of a committee against rules...

It just goes on and on...

I'm not saying that there haven't been Dems that were dirty, or that people haven't been pressured to vote the party line in the past, but the blatant corruption of the process and the legislation is stunning...

And then the vote on torture. That ought to make McCain lay awake at night...

Sorry, I'm rambling... I'm just so pissed off! :grr:

[markus]

25. That's bullshit

There were no 45 minutes votes.

There were no one party conference committees.

Major pieces of legislation were not brought to the floor before they were fucking printed.

[Fla Dem]

14. That about sums it up. There clearly is a difference between

liberal thinking and conservative thinking.

[jillan]

7. At least our legislation was 'nice'.

We helped people, not take things away from the little people so the rich could get richer.

Repigs don't know how to play 'nice'.

[Sir Jeffrey]

9. Absolutely true...

and it makes me angry when I see the Reps do this type of shit day in and day out, but because in it I see why we continue to lose. If we had even 100 die-hards on our side, we'd have rammed single payer health care through decades ago. But no, our leaders were too interested in appealing to moderates, kicking poor people off welfare, increasing the number of death row inmates, and throwing more money at the cancerous military industrial complex.

When we win back both houses in 2006, we NEED to do this type of shit every damned day. Make that pretzel choking scumbag spend everyday signing vetoes and defending them.

It would have been nice for them to have this kind of "fire" in their bellies in January 2001, right?

[LittleClarkie]

17. If you are correct, then how legit would it be for Nancy Pelosi to bitch

about it then?

I'm not into this partisan, "when we do it, it's okay, but when they do it, it's wrong.

That's bullshit.

[Sir Jeffrey]

24. Read "Unorthodox Lawmaking" by Barbara Sinclair...

I had to read it for a class in undergrad. It shows how stacked the rules committee is, and how both parties used it (along with the speaker position) to control or eliminate opposition to key pieces of legislation.

Everything I wrote is true. I actually wrote more, but I cut it down considerably since I usually get flamed when I accuse some Dems of grandstanding or whatnot.

If, for example, single payer were the highest priority in the HR, they could ram it through if they could come close to a majority (which is why I said what I did about doing it decades ago). But no, our party was too busy feeding our cancerous military industrial complex to appear strong on defense. It is that kind of knowledge that leads people into cynically and Quixotically supporting third parties or, for that matter, not voting.

Much of the work of the HR is done in a smaller representative body called the COmmittee of the Whole. A lot of the substantive issues are addressed in the various committees and subcommittees. Often, what you see on the floor (the COmmittee of the Whole, or typically what you see on CSPAN) is the "show" that is put on for the citizenry to give us the illusion of democracy. Everything is done away from the limelight. By the time we find out, the decision has already been decided. Many would argue the same basic scenario for our "elections".


Part of the myth of american democracy is that the citizen has some input and influence on policy. Take for example the anti-war protests. I appreciate the effort people put into it and all that, but the sad fact is that the elected are going to do what they want regardless of how many people protest. We have no democracy. We have no democratic institutions. We have "necessary illusions", to paraphrase Chomsky (who was quoting someone else).

To close this drunken tirade, I will submit to you that much of what you have seen over the last few years has been the wilful negation of many of our rights with the complicity of vast numbers of our elected representatives (the supposed opposition). I don't know if Pelosi is in on it or not (I'm inclined to say that she isn't). But it is all in vain if the decisions are made beforehand.

Sorry, I almost forgot to answer your question. It wouldn't be very legitimate IMO. SOme might say that the abuse of power by the Republicans is something the Dems haven't stooped to before. I am inclined to agree with that statement to a point, but for a different point. The Dems, I would argue, in many instances SHOULD HAVE resorted to such measures if they truly believed in something. But that is not to say that Dems did not do very shady and "anti-democratic" acts whilst in power nearly on par with Reps. Sinclair's book (or many of her other books) would probably show you how the system really works, and it isn't like the School House Rocks song I barely remember.

[never_get_over_it]

10. I'd be curious

did Dems ever leave the vote open for extended periods of time in violation of the rules until they got enough votes like the Repunks did on the Medicaid bill and I think they did today with some legislation probably the one that is yet another give away to the oil companies. I don't know the answer to this but I would be very interested to know.

Another example is how the repunks did everything they could to block the vast majority of Clinton's judicial nominees - have the Dems ever done that?

[LittleClarkie]

19. I'd like to see the comparison between how many Clinton folks got blocked

compared to how many Bush's nominees did, even for a while.

Conservatives remember Clinton folks getting in all over the place, but they think Bush's nominees are being treated unfairly. Of course they would. But I'd love to see the numbers, at ALL levels, not just the ones that make them or us look better.

[NMDemDist2]

21. here's an interesting article on the Judicial Revisionism of the Repub

SNIP>>>>>>>

It is disingenuous for Republicans to now claim that all judicial nominees should get votes on the floor of the Senate after they blocked scores of judicial nominees from ever receiving a Committee hearing or a vote. Democrats repeatedly called for nominees to be given a Committee vote, up or down. Now that judicial nominees are finally receiving due process, Republicans do not like the results.

While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-2-285.html

[Yupster]

22. Yes

When C-Span started in the 80's I watched it religiously, and the music would play while the vote totals showed and the time clock would count down the 15 minutes or whatever it was to vote.

And then the clock would hit zero, and the vote was lost by 10 votes or so, but then nothing happened.

And the music would keep playing for another 10-15 minutes, but the vote total on the screen would stay the same with the vote lost by 10 votes or so.

Then you'd hear the Speaker announce the final vote which was a two vote victory. I don't think 3 1/2 hours, but 15 minutes or a half hour I saw more than once.

The other thing that would be on tv was a committee hearing with eight members present. There would be seven Republicans and one Democratic chairman. On each amendment the seven Republicans would vote yes, and then the Democratic chairman would vote no nine times proxying for all the missing Democratic members. I thought at the time that this was a stupid practice as the missing members would have no idea what they were voting for or against by proxy.

[Traveling_Home]

12. Landside Lyndon

was a great majority leader, if being able to power legislstion through the house is the measure. As President this made him powerfully effective when he needed to get legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through Congress.

[LittleClarkie]

20. Lyndon is the reason I sometimes say

you don't want a Texas politician involved if you want a clean election, either Dem or Repub.

[gatorboy]

13. Weren't the Repugs suppose to bring integrity back to Washington?

Just sayin'....

[ClassWarrior]

27. Cut it out! You made me blow milk out of my nose...

:rofl:

NGU.

[leftofthedial]

15. The Dems were never like the post-Gingrich repukes

the current repukes, especially in the House, have subverted democracy entirely. They make up the rules as they go along and then change those if it suites their purposes. Corruption is at an all-time high (or low). Corporations write legislation. It's one thing to play political hardball and get votes to go your way. It's another to make "votes" irrelevant.