Is it backroom politics right in front of our noses? Gang of 14 & Big 8

[The Backlash Cometh]

There are 3 clear examples of pseudo committees being created that don't seem to have any legal basis for their existence. Yet, they have and are having an enormous effect on public policy:

(1) Alito Filibuster: When we got sabotaged on the Alito filibuster, a Gang of 14 bi-partisan Senators met behind closed doors to determine the fate of the vote. We didn't hear what they said, we couldn't tell if deals were being made to buy votes. All we know is, that when they came out of the room, a decision had been made that affected the vote in a very detrimental way to our interests. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this Gang of 14, is not a group defined by our constitution, nor part of the known organizational chart of any of the branches. If Senators were city commissioners doing the same thing, this would be called ex-parte communications and it would be illegal.

(2) Gonzalez Wiretapping hearing We all know that the Bush Administration didn't just sidestep the FISA court, but it also sidestepped the Judiciary committee in the Senate. The point is that they should have made amendments to FISA through the judiciary committee, but they didn't. Gonzalez claimed that, instead, they were keeping abreast 8 special bi-partisan Senators of what they were doing. Rockefeller was one of them. I believe Dianne Feinstein called them the Big 8. She sums up my concerns about a backroom gang of 8 in the following comments:

"It's my view that the briefings of the big 8 essentially violate the law as well. I belive that's a second violation of law, because I believe that specifically say how the intelligence committee should be notified. ......The committee really wanted all sensitive intelligence reported in writing..... set up a mechanism for that.... all sensitive information outside of covert to be reported to the committee"

As if to illustrate what could go wrong when you have backroom, secret talks taking place, Rockefeller was left holding the bag:

"Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, ranking member of the Intelligence also stated that he was briefed, and that he wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney expressing concern about the surveillance. The information he received was so confidential that Rockefeller actually handwrote a note to Cheney rather than have a staffer type one out. However, Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Intelligence Committee chairman, disputed this, saying that he did not recall Rockefeller expressing concerns during briefings, and also disputed whether he was effectively gagged from telling other senators about the surveillance. Roberts stated that 'a United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools'"

Rockefeller gets egg on his face for joining one of these groups. So, you would think that any Democratic Senator who joins one of these gangs is a fool because he's got to know he's being used as a tool. Sure, you're in a good place to sell your vote for favors, but if something "really" goes very wrong, there isn't anything on the record that will point out any differences of opinion. Your name just gets used by the right to duplicitously claim the group is bi-partisan.

(3) Obama and John McCain Re: Ethics Reform & McCain's special task force.Why is McCain trying so hard to head a special bi-partisan task force when there is already a process in place for this? Look closely at Obama's response to John McCain:

"I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter. All emphasis mine

So it very much sounds like McCain's task force is like the Gang of 14, and like the Big 8 which is nothing more than more backroom politics where Republicans can cut deals with soft/DINO Democrats to: (1) undermine the Democrats as a party and; (2) present a false front to the public that bi-partisan agreement has been reached. Obviously, anyone who disagrees with these backroom gangs, is an obstructionist.

Do you all see it?

[leftstreet]

1. Wow

Bizarre

edited to add:
This explains why McCain/Obama's spat didn't make much sense to me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. And why Lieberman was so quick to side with McCain this morning on

Imus. It kind of feels like old lechers trying to turn new meat.

[leftstreet]

8. That makes perfect sense

:mad:

[dsc]

2. Rockefeller didn't join a rump group

Those 8 people are the specific people that the President is to inform of covert operations. As Ranking Member of the Intellegence Committee he is the Democratic Senator who is point man on those issues. He also isn't permitted to tell people about what he is told.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Hmmm...then why did some of the Senators act like they didn't even

know who was in this group? Do you have a link that confirms the legitimacy of their existence? I still agree with Feinstein.

[radio4progressives]

5. excellent post ! k&r

:applause:

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Unfortunately, I got the idea from local government.

I don't know how legal it is, but right there in city hall they will set up private meetings between city staffers and special interest groups, and when the city staffers are satisfied, it gets sent to the Commission meetings where the public sees the results for the first time, without warning to do anything about it when it comes up for a vote. It's how you get that feeling of a "Done Deal."

[Pithy Cherub]

6. It's kabuki theatre in D.C.

I have believed that for a long time. The Kabuki Play - "Strategically" ,with the most money possible wasted on the worst political consultants, they select a self-serving outcome and shape the message or lack there of to explain in advance and then round up the votes to support the least controversial position that will still net certain corporate donors to continue giving unabated. Enter the grassroots activists and the Liberal Blogosphere breathing fire and carrying the Verbal Swords of Truth, heavy smoke descends and the Kabuki Play ends exactly as previously laid out. Those off script are summarily punished by vapor synthetic sources who wink and nod at audience of corporate media whores who dutifully stenograph what stand-in actors said during Kabuki Theatre.

The End.

[TheVirginian]

9. To set things straight with you...

There is no constitutional basis for the Gang of 14. There is also no constitutional basis for the Republican or Democratic parties, for the Congressional Black Caucus, or for the commitee process.

Caucuses in Congress, like the Black Caucus, like the variety of single-issue caucuses (e.g., the "Taiwan Caucus"), are simply a natural extension of politics of any sort. If you have a group of people who vote on matters, then it would serve your interests best to coordinate your actions with like-minded individuals. These caucuses are free to meet amongst themselves and talk about the issues, just as a Congressman is free to meet with his staff, his advisors, his family, his constituents, or whomever he wants, to talk about the issues.

Think of the Gang of 14 the same way. Its an extension of politics, and it is technically a bi-partisan caucus, aimed at preserving the status quo in the Senate. The only reason they hold power is because of the numbers of the Senate. It takes a majority to invoke the nuclear option. It takes 3/5ths vote to sustain a filibuster. With 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats, they have the power to shift numbers away from each party. There's nothing illegal with it. The 14 like-minded Senators got together and decided on a course of action.

Senators can make, and do make, agreements all the time when it comes to voting. I'll vote this way or that way so you'll vote this way or that way in the future. I'll support this if you support that. I'll vote this way if you give me credit for voting this way. I'll support your legislation if you convince your friends to drop this attack against me. Its the nature of politics, and the nature of a group of 100 people voting on a massive range of issues. There is simply no unoppressive or democratic alternative.

And the Intelligence Committee IS part of the committee structure (which, itself has no constitutional basis). It was designed for this very reason: to handle sensative matters. The dispute between Roberts and Rockafeller could've happened on any committee, and in fact happens frequently on every committee.

To suggest that all "backroom dealing" as you call it, or caucus meetings, are illegal and underhanded is a very uninformed opinion of how the Senate works, and how politics in general works. You get any group of 100 people together to vote on issues, and this is what happens. If you disapprove, the two ways to have accountability is to vote for someone else, and to lobby to change our system of government.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Thanks for a wonderful explanation.

The groups pointed out in the original post are not at all like the Black Caucus, which I imagine is composed of Democrats. In other words, they vote as a group within acceptable Democratic parameters.

The Gang of 14, on the other hand, is a peculiar group of conservatives from both parties and I think it is imperative to keep an eye on those Democrats within the group because they continue to vote against the Dem party interests. Certainly people high on the list to replace.

Obviously, the answer is to change the system because ordinary people, like me, are sick and tired of the Beltway buggaloo you all play. What you all take for granted, is what we want to put an end to.

I don't want my Senator to sell his vote just to get someone off his back. That's a crappy way to do things. That's what we ordinary people call blackmail. I'd like to believe my Senator is getting informed on the facts of an issue and voting in a way that is beneficial to his constituents, or at least fair to all involved.

Yes, that may be naive, but people like me will back politicians like Obama for wanting an open process, compared to someone who is trying to hide the dirt in a backroom. And quite frankly, I have been to the Capital recently and those caucus meetings you talk about? They're almost non-existent now that the Republicans have taken over.

Those nice rooms where they use to hold caucus meetings between the parties have now been handed over to the lobbyist who bring in shrimp and other delicacies and liquor to wine and dine and lobby their Congressmen. Long gone are the real caucus committees where there was bipartisan research and discussion of issues. That's because Republicans now vote as a group, which means that they wait for their marching orders. The only time they cross the aisle is when they think the Democrats might have a chance to undermine them, then suddenly, the Gang of 14 come together. So who gets the politician's attention? I've been told the better the food and liquor, the better chance of some of the politicians showing up to one of those caucus rooms, hosted by lobbyist. So, you don't hold traditional caucus meetings anymore between the partys, because you hold parties with the lobbyist.

The whole system stinks. And all of it can be fixed with a little bit of sunshine.

[undergroundpanther]

11. Remember the Shadow Government?

Wonder who's on the roster?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/01/shadow.government/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20584-2002Feb28?language=printer

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Ironically, we seem to be protecting the one person we could probably

do better without. Cheney. Until we really know what his involvement was that may have stirred up 9/11 or which may have undermined the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies, are we really safe from another attack?

[TheVirginian]

12. Your original post asked about the legality and Constitution

While there is a large difference, politically, between the Black Caucus and the Gang of 14, legally and Constitutionally speaking, they are essentially the same thing.

So while there is legitimate complaint about Republicans and conservative Democrats selling out their constituents, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the formation of such Senatorial groups.

[radio4progressives]

14. ok. we're clear and point taken.. ..

but as the op asserts, politics as usual isn't the reality game anymore. so maybe the "gang of 14" isn't technically illegal. the legality isn't really the issue - the issue is concievably of matter of ethics, and certainly a matter of bad politics, in so far as the people and principles are concerned.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

[kentuck]

13. Uh-huh...it sounds like Obama is on to their game...

No wonder they are pissed !

[Gronk Groks]

15. A Rookie Senator who dared to NOT be part of the "Old Boy's Network"...

That must be VERY insulting to a card carrying member of a Criminal Cartel...

Sold your soul McCain, Obama doesn't want to sell his.
Guess who is going to be President first, oh follower of Satan...er shrub...whatever.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I wish there was some way to drive that point.

[Gronk Groks]

20. Wooden stake and Mallet perhaps???

All kidding aside, we should let our Congress Critters know that it is NOT business as usual anymore.
The corruption probes SHOULD devastate the Republicans in congress.
The warrantless tapping SHOULD get shrub impeached.

If we lose '06, it is because we have fumbled it (again) OR
Diebold has stolen it (again).

Let's make sure that it is OBVIOUS that that steal elections.
(something about 'getting ready for the new revolution' comes to mind)

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. I think we need to explain to fools like Imus that Obama wants an

open system to deal with ethical reform, rather than a closed task force.

[Totally Committed]

21. See it?

I've been trying to tell people this for months and months. It's the f*cking DLC/Repub colluders trying to take over this Party.

TC