GOP will scar American Politics for the forseeable future

Hubris. Perfect word to describe the management of the majority by this form of Republicans. Called neo-Cons, I had issue with the term - as they were more a replay of the old school. But upon further examination, the neo prefix fits - never before has such slash & burn billigerance been applied in the two party system. The old school at least respected the 'what goes around comes around' adage. These folks act like there won't be something to come around to.

Wonder if they know something?

Government by Juggernaut

Wednesday, November 26, 2003; Page A24


THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS' manipulation of the Medicare vote was characteristic of the bullying, win-by-any-means style that has become the congressional norm. More than at any time during their nine years in control, congressional Republicans have been unabashed in their exercise of raw political power. However poisonous relations between the parties were heading into the 108th Congress, this session has witnessed levels of partisanship unhealthy not only for both sides but for the people they're supposed to represent.



Hardball isn't new to politics; Democrats happily employed the rules to their advantage when they held power, and, in the Senate, where the minority has greater protections, they still do. Republicans once clamored for fair treatment and railed against their subjugation at Democratic hands. But their use of the rules to impose their will is making the Democrats look benevolent by comparison. "The Republicans had better hope that the Democrats never regain the majority," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the day after the House Medicare vote.

In the session now limping to its conclusion, Democrats have been excluded from conference committees, where the majority seems to view them as a pesky irrelevance. On the energy bill, they were shut out entirely. On prescription drugs, a favored few Democratic senators inclined to support the bill were allowed into the room. But Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), who had voted for the Senate measure and been appointed to the conference by his party, was barred; so were all House Democrats. And while conferences are supposed to resolve differences between the two houses, these days legislation often emerges with provisions previously unseen -- and undebated -- in either house. Other provisions approved by both chambers disappear in conference. Lawmakers are then confronted with an unappetizing up-or-down vote on the entire package.

Rank-and-file lawmakers of both parties are often unable to see legislation until the vote is upon them -- not just because details are still being hammered out, but because exposing the document to public scrutiny would hurt the cause of those who seek to have it passed by any means. Both houses have rules designed to prevent this sort of governing by ambush. But these are routinely swept aside in the interest of swift passage, however uninformed. Contempt for the minority extends to the White House, which sought recently to require that Democrats obtain the approval of Republican committee chairs before submitting questions to the administration.

In the House, where the majority has the parliamentary power, the ability to offer amendments is constricted, and often curtailed entirely, with Democrats stopped from even offering their alternative for a vote. Debate is abridged to the point of parody. On prescription drugs, each side had an hour to present its views on one of the biggest changes in Medicare since its enactment. But when the time came to vote and Republicans lacked a majority, the haste evaporated. The customary 15-minute limit for voting was stretched to close to three hours, as GOP leaders confronting a loss bludgeoned members to switch their votes. While this was the longest such stretch, it wasn't an aberration: The majority has kept the vote open about a dozen times in recent years. Adding time to a vote may not seem like a big deal, but when it's done in contravention of the usual practice and solely for the purpose of achieving the desired outcome, it leaves lasting bitterness.

In 1987, when then-House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) employed a pale version of this practice -- keeping the vote open an extra 15 minutes -- Republicans denounced this as an outrageous departure from regular order. Then-Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) railed against "Jim Wright and his goons." And a Republican congressman named Dick Cheney denounced the move as "the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I've ever seen in the 10 years that I've been here." Funny, but Vice President Cheney doesn't seem nearly so outraged now.

continued

www.washingtonpost.com...



I submit that we are not served by this form of procedure. Regardless of party affiliation, who sees any benefit in not having our elected officials, ALL of them, heard in the Legilative bodies designed to proffer the American people the best choice?

Scar? Doubtful.
Try....one word: MemoGate.
Talk about 'scarring' American politics........

Or this by the Washington Post
"Democrats get a wake-up call"
Link:
www.msnbc.com...

Excerpt:
"Nov. 26 � In politics, there�s nothing like having the other side steamroll your party � using your own steamroller � to jangle the emotions.
DEMOCRATS HAVE owned the Medicare issue for nearly 40 years. But this week, the Republicans climbed into the driver�s seat and mashed the gas pedal. In closed-door sessions that excluded nearly all Democrats, through rule-bending roll calls, dishing out goodies to friends and twisting arms of the recalcitrant, the Republicans passed $400 billion worth of changes. Democrats spent the day picking carpet fibers out of their hairdos and sorting out their reactions."


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by Seekerof]

... had a headline that claimed "Ted Kennedy got his pocket picked by the Republicans in the Senate"...

NO DOUBT about it! Seekerof's excerpt catches the reality perfectly... The Dems have NO SOLUTIONS, ANSWERS or PLANS, ALL they have os attacks against one fo the most popular Presidents/Administrations in recent history! It's laughable! It's also scary in a way...

The way the Dems are going they are at risk of destroying the ONLY tenable opposition the Republicans have! THAT will NOT be good for America or, for that matter, the rest of the world... Checks and balances are NECESSARY for humanity, especially the most powerful franchise of humanity...

PEACE...
m...

Scar? Absolutely.
SOLUTIONS, ANSWERS or PLANS: can be Noble or Pulitzer prize worthy, but if you have ONE PARTY RULE, and they actively BAR MEETINGS, DEBATES OR ALTERNATE versions of legislation being offered up, then NOTHING WILL BE HEARD!!

This is where we put our thinking caps on gentlemen, it's not the Mudpit. In your answers you echoed the same exact malaise I staked out, " One point of view that cripples all alternate solutions from, at the very least, being debated, does NOT serve our country well".
Where we can debate the presentation of plan at the presidential candidate level versus the incumbant, we CAN NOT APPLY THAT TO CONGRESS. The seats are set & headcount is taken, there is no exchange of ideas because the Republican Majority in both houses is in steamroll mode. That the pushed through such a very bad piece of legislation, in light of some of the other plans, should be nothing that you're cheering about.
Look at what got passed because of those majority bully tactics:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While I have the means for my family, many do not.

I hate this Republican plan of, "take the Democrats agenda, so they have to go so far left no one will vote for them and only us!" Well guess what GOP, FU_K YOU! you have moved way to far to the "left" that you look like the communist party. You will not in any near future get my vote, that is for sure.

The most interesting aspect of the neo cons is their lefty-lineage. They are of students of the Leo Strauss school of thought. Hardly conservative. Or what we old timers would consider to be Republican.